I move—

Mr. Speaker, we pointed out at the Second Reading that we had certain rooted objections in principle to this Bill, and now that it is on the point of becoming law—we realize that that must be the case because the Government has a built-in majority in this House—we would like to take this last opportunity of voicing our disapproval of certain aspects of the Bill. At this stage I merely want to say that we believe that this measure is untimely; its timing is most unfortunate. I do not want to pursue that any further. In terms of our history here, our history overseas and the events of the world, we think that it is a most unfortunate time to proceed with this measure.

The hon. the Minister said yesterday that there were certain constitutional changes in the Bill. We on this side of the House have recognized those constitutional changes. We had hoped that the Government was not going to lay too much emphasis on them, but it is quite clear from what was said by the hon. the Minister yesterday that considerable emphasis is being laid on those constitutional changes. The measure was presented initially as an administrative measure, merely arranging for certain functions now being discharged by the Administration of South-West Africa to be hereafter the duty of the appropriate Departments here in the Republic, leaving a small residue of powers and functions to the Administration in South-West, and a small residue of powers for the Legislative Assembly there, in respect of which it can legislate but that is by no means the position. One effect of the Bill which we see very clearly is going to be not only due to the distance which the administrative capital of South-West Africa is from Pretoria or in the case of the session down here in Cape Town. It is not only the distance but there is in existence a feeling, and it has been given voice to by the Odendaal Commission and by hon. members on both sides of the House, and from official and unofficial quarters. We have had approval and approbation from all sides for the work which has been carried on by the Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa, not only over the last few months but over the years. Under extremely difficult conditions constitutionally the Legislative Assembly of South-West has grappled with its problems in a most exemplary manner and it has done excellent work. This Bill is now going to disturb that. It will alter the whole position of the Assembly there in such a fundamental manner that it ceases really to have any of the character which it enjoyed in the past.

Sir, I would suggest to the Minister, even at this late stage, that one of the ill-effects of this legislation, although it does not appear from any of the clauses, will be to kill that spirit of pride of the people of South-West in their own Legislature, a local pride but a very valuable adjunct to government. Situated as they are a long way from the centres of administration in the Republic, proud of their own history and achievements, and proud of the fact that they have been able financially to see themselves gradually going from strength to strength, from a community which was almost penurious at one time to the proud position they occupy in terms of their own status to-day financially, to see all that swept aside, to see this pride in local government destroyed at one stroke, we think is very regrettable unless a good reason is shown for it, and it can do the cause of government in South Africa no good whatsoever, particularly, as I say, at this time in our history.

Let us have a look at one or two of the matters which will flow from the passing of this Bill. The Government has recognized the difficulties of administration which will come about as the result of the centralization of authority in Pretoria of so many of the matters which are scheduled. So, as my hon. leader pointed out during the Second Reading, certain people vested with authority will be stationed in South-West Africa as the representatives of the Departments concerned, and the White Paper makes it quite clear that that is for the purpose of assisting in the administration, the clear implication being that if it were not for such a provision, the Administration would be lamed and unable to cope with the day-to-day matters which must arise in dealing with the government of such a vast territory, a territory covering such wide differences of climate, rural and urban populations, the different race groups, etc., all of which have been governed so well up to now.

So the Government now appoints these representatives in Windhoek. But how much extra costs will be incurred because of the extra staff and additional expenditure, because a great deal of extra staff will have to be appointed? As is known, staff is hard to come by, and I go so far as to say that some of the Departments concerned are already stretching themselves to the limit to find staff to meet the situation here in the Republic, never mind taking staff away from here to staff the new organization to be established in South-West Africa. These extra costs will have to be borne by somebody, and as the matter stands at the moment it would appear that somebody will be the South-West African finances. For whatever the real reasons may be, the Government has decided to bring South-West Africa down to—very broadly speaking—the status of a province. The financial arrangements which are being changed so completely have still left certain areas of doubt. Regarding the provisions in the Bill, and one or two matters which we raised here with the hon. the Minister yesterday when reference was made to the memorandum which came out with the Bill last year, there are areas of doubt regarding the financial arrangements between the Republic and South-West Africa.

Under this measure what is going to be the position of those who produce karakul pelts in South-West Africa? The Minister’s reply yesterday was completely unsatisfactory. I found it most interesting when I listened today to the parliamentary report compiled by the S.A.B.C., which we all know is an arm of the Government, that not a word was said about karakul pelts. They talked about this, they talked about that, they talked about financial administration, they talked about financial adjustments, but not once did they refer to karakul pelts. This they did for a very good reason. I believe the Government is deliberately leaving the whole matter in doubt for adjustment at some later stage, and I think that is unfair. I think it is also unfair to Parliament. When the Government comes with a Bill of this kind, and it says in so many words that the intention now is to clear up the financial relations between the Republic and the Territory, then financial relations should be cleared up and there should be no doubt, no room for uncertainty in regard to these matters.

It is a source of income for them.

Yes, my hon. Leader says this is a source of income, almost the sole income of a very large and very important part of the population, and it was one of the main bases upon which the economic development of the Territory took place from which stems the Territory’s strong economy to-day. Under existing conditions that money goes back to that community, to the farming community. Three-quarters of the money is used for one purpose and the balance for another, but it all goes back. That procedure is obviously being completely changed. I want to say in all fairness the Government is not prepared to state here to-day to the karakul pelt producers of South-West Africa: “This is what we are going to do to you in so far as the disposal of your pelts and the disposal of the money received from karakul pelt sales in South-West Africa are concerned.” They are not prepared to say it.

If there is an hon. member from South-West Africa here who will follow me and in categorical terms and using words of one syllable—because I am a poor farmer and no longer understand words of more syllables—tell us exactly what the Government’s intentions are and give an assurance to South-West Africa, as well as to this hon. House, that what he says is accurate, then I for one will listen with very great interest indeed.

The next point I want to come to is the future economic growth of the Territory. You know, Sir, throughout the world, with disturbances of various kinds, capital moves rapidly from a threatened area to a safe area. That is a characteristic of international capital and it has perhaps never been more clearly demonstrated, at any rate since the last war, than at the present time. This Bill has overtones of constitutional rearrangements, it deals specifically and categorically with financial matters, it takes away the right which the people of the Territory have exercised regarding their economic future and puts it into the hands of Pretoria, and it also deals with other matters associated with race, which I want to deal with in a moment. Bearing this in mind, when this Bill is passed, where is the security which the investor of big money will want to see regarding his investment in South-West Africa? I believe this measure is going to have a most deleterious effect on the investment of capital in South-West Africa, and therefore on its economic growth. The people with the big money behind them are not, with this Bill in front of them, when it becomes law, in a position to say, “We are now satisfied that the investment of our money in South-West Africa under these circumstances is secured.” They will not be able to say, “Our money is safe. We can go ahead. We can undertake long-term planning and bring in big sums of money.” I believe that it is going to have a gravely stultifying effect on the future economic development of the Territory.

Now I want to come to the question of the labour, because that is one of the issues. Let me say at once and again that the Government in this measure is treating the Coloured people of South-West Africa on a basis that is totally different from that applied in South Africa. This can only be a bone of contention. It can only create heartburn and difficulty. I still believe, in spite of all that has been going on in all the years that I have been in Parliament and all the thousands of words and speeches I have listened to, that basically the first call upon a government here in South Africa is to find a means of getting the races to live together in peace and harmony by agreement. A government that fails to do that, is building up trouble for us all. There cannot be trouble for a political section and not for the other sections, the non-political people. Political sections among the white groups connot cause trouble only for themselves. They bring the whole of the white section in South Africa into the turmoil that is created. Similarly with regard to the non-Whites. Basically, every government of South Africa should be tested against the question as to whether, by agreement, it is bringing about a system where we can live together in peace and harmony. This kind of development that is taking place now in South-West Africa, as the result of the constitutional changes being brought about in this Bill amongst other measures, is something which is designed to create disharmony. There again I say, what of the economic future of the Territory? I believe that this Bill is out of time. It is wrong in principle. The powers which are being conferred upon the State President—I am going to leave that to other members—are matters which ought not to be dealt with by a country such as we are. At a time like this, it is out of time. This is not the way in which we should be dealing with these matters. The custody of South-West Africa is in our keeping. We are the custodians of the welfare of those people. I believe that we are not discharging that duty faithfully to those people of all races when we pass a measure such as this. We shall oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the opposite side are riding a new hobby horse in this debate. We have always been hearing in this House of their federation plan, their race federation they envisage for the Republic. But their attitude towards South-West Africa now introduces a totally new aspect into politics, i.e. that they want to regard South-West Africa, apart from the mutual relations among the various races in South-West Africa, as a separate federation unit as well. In other words, they are now moving in the direction of a race federation which they envisage here, and then they also want a kind of provincial federation. These are two different aspects of the matter. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has just made an interjection knows that the aim of every statesman in South Africa from the earliest years onwards was to link South-West Africa closer to the Republic on a unitary basis. I think that hon. members on the opposite side, if they were for example to have accepted responsibility at the National Convention in 1910 for the unitary constitution we have to-day, would have left us badly in the lurch if they had at that time advocated a federative system such as the one they are now envisaging in respect of South-West Africa. If they want a federation for South-West Africa, separated from the Republic of South Africa, is it not consequently logical that what they are envisaging in respect of the provinces in South Africa is also a loose federation of this kind? And in what way is South-West Africa different from, for example the provinces of the Republic? Does the United Party not know enough history? Do they not know what became of the Malayan Federation when Singapore left? Do they not know what happened to the Central African Federation when Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia left? Do they not know what became of the East African Federation when Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika fell out? Do they not know what became of the West African Federation when the Ivory Coast shattered it? Do they not know about the Mid-African Federation which Gaboon nut an end to? Do they not know that Jamaica caused the West Indian Federation to come to an end? Do they not know that the Federation of Mali and Senegal ended in failure in 1960 as a result of the actions of certain states there? Do they not know that India and Pakistan, which co-operated on a federal basis, have parted company? Do they not know that the federation of Ruanda and Urundi have separated? Do they not know what the result of the Nigerian Federation is to-day? In spite of all this they now want a federation in South-West Africa.

I want to indicate again that all statesmen in South Africa foresaw a constitution for South-West Africa which would ultimately allow it to become part of the Republic, or at that time, the Union. Hon. members who are now sitting on the opposite side of the House represent the same party which General Smuts represented in this House. They are now betraying that party one standpoint after another. When General Smuts visited Windhoek on 16th September, 1920, he referred to what he called his “vision” in regard to the future of South-West Africa. I have here a booklet of his speech published in Dutch and I want to read extracts from it to hon. members opposite. With reference to South-West Africa he said (translation)—

That is what General Smuts said, and he was so convinced that the legislation which is today bringing South-West Africa closer to the Republic was the only solution for the future of South-West Africa that he sent a clipping of his speech, as it appeared in the Cape Times of 18th September, 1920, to the League of Nations. He sent it to them and said that that was his standpoint, and the hon. member for North Rand, who is making interjections now, can go and look up the minutes of the Permanent Mandate Commission during its second session, schedule 6, page 91. Immediately after that General Smuts appointed the De Wet Commission which consisted of members of the House of Assembly in order to devise a constitution for South-West Africa. The terms of reference of this Commision were, inter alia, to investigate—

Hon. members can look up the report UG. 24/1921 themselves. Why did South-West Africa not get the legislation we are dealing with here to-day at that time already? There are various reasons for that, and the De Wet Commission went into them fully. Inter alia, they pointed out that the white population of South-West Africa of that time numbered only one tenth of the population of the smallest province of the then Union of South Africa, and that for an area which was three-quarters the size of the then Union. On these grounds the Commission found that it would not be possible to accord South-West Africa the status which it is being granted to-day. Nevertheless, this was the Commission’s finding, provincial status would have to come. It did not want to express an opinion on a suitable date for that. As it stated in its report (translation)—

Only when there were 10,000 white male voters was provincial status to have been granted to the territory. That is what the Commission recommended at that time. In 1925 South-West Africa received its first Constitution by virtue of Act No. 42 of 1925. But apparently General Smuts was disappointed. He wanted the legislation which we have here to-day, to have been introduced at that time already. At that time he stated his standpoint very clearly in Volume 5, column 3929/30 of Hansard. He stated that South-West Africa and the then Union should be linked more closely to each other. If this were not done at that time he visualized an automatic and natural development process which would cause the two territories to draw further away from each other, something which he wanted to prevent and to which he referred as a federal system. In any case, this was the Constitution which South-West Africa was granted in 1925 and which Dr. Malan described as “a halfway station to nowhere”. That is in fact what it meant. In fact, I want to go further and state that the position which South-West Africa is at present still occupying, i.e. prior to this legislation, is in my opinion nothing else than that of a “half-way station to nowhere”.

In 1936 there was another South-West African Commission with instructions to find the best form for the development of South-West Africa to take. It is obvious that the inhabitants of South-West Africa were not satisfied with the existing position as it then was. Something was wrong. In fact, that Commission, a judicial commission under the chairmanship of Judge Van Zyl, mentioned this in its report (translation)—

As has been said, the instructions to this commission was to find the best form of government for South-West Africa. In its report the commission recommended (translation)—

1. (a) The present form of government for South-West Africa is a failure and ought to be abolished;
2. (b) that there is no legal obstacle to the control of the Mandate as a province of the Union, subject to the Mandate.

It is interesting to note that the commission suggested various forms for the constitutional development of South-West Africa. Judge Van Zyl, the chairman, and Dr. Holloway, for example, recommended that South-West Africa should be granted provincial status. There was no mention of a federation system because they realized that such a system would cause the two territories to drift apart, as General Smuts also realized.

As a result of the course of events after 1936 and the war clouds which were gathering over Europe, it was not in the interests of South Africa to proceed to any immediate step. According to Die Suidwes-Afrikaner of 29.9.1939, General Smuts stated that he deemed it undesirable to incorporate South-West Africa as a province at that stage, or to introduce any changes in the then existing form of administration. This matter, so he said, would be decided by the outcome of the war. Quite right. Immediately after the war General Smuts again said the only and ideal system for South-West Africa would be to form closer ties, as is now in fact being done. Hon. members can look up his speech in Volume 56 of Hansard, column 3679, of 15th March, 1946. I do not want to quote it now. Immediately afterwards and after the U.N.O. had been formed, General Smuts had legislation drafted to give South-West Africa those closer ties for which he had been pleading since 1920. Unfortunately General Smuts never tabled or introduced that legislation. The name of the Bill was The Representation of South-West Africa Act, 1946. In that Bill provision was made for representation of South-West Africa in this Parliament. But after he had experienced set-backs at the U.N.O. he stated, according to Die Suidwes-Afrikaner of 10.6.47 that “it could be a few more years before the constitution of the Territory is introduced on an incorporative basis”.

The entire population of South-West Africa shared this vision with General Smuts. In fact, the late Mr. J. P. Niehaus, father of the present leader of the U.N.S.W.P. and during his lifetime chairman of the party in South-West Africa said, according to Die Suidwes-Afrikaner of 17.6.27, that it would simply be “madness” to allege that South-West Africa could be economically self-supporting, and that is why he advocated this form of representation which is being granted to South-West Africa to-day, in other words, the incorporation by the Republic of certain of the state departments of South-West Africa. After a crisis had subsequently arisen in the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa and the German members had walked out on 18.5.33, that Assembly which then consisted exclusively of members of the U.N.S.W.P., unanimously decided—even the Chairman requested that his vote should be cast in favour of it—that South-West Africa should be incorporated. By that they envisaged legislation similar to that which we are dealing with here to-day.

But it is significant that the vision General Smuts had had in regard to South-West Africa also found favour to a large extent with the League of Nations. The Director of the Mandate Division of the League of Nations, Mr. Rappard, said, according to the minutes of the sixth session of the Permanent Mandate Commission of 1925, pages 58-9 that there were only certain principles which had to be complied with before South-West Africa could be incorporated in the Union. He formulated the second principle as follows—

It is also significant that Lord Lugard, one of the greatest authorities on this matter, who was also a member of the Permanent Mandate Commission, quoted at the 26th session in 1934 the standpoint of Professor A. B. Keith, who is to-day still regarded as one of the greatest constitutional lawyers in the world, who was of the opinion that South-West Africa could be incorporated as a province. Lord Lugard on this occasion said—

He then mentioned examples where this had happened—

In other words, even amongst them the opinion was held that the legislation which is to-day envisaging further incorporation of South-West Africa and re-adjustments of Departments was quite in order.

But now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along and what does he say? This is his logic. He says: This system which has been in operation since 1949, must have been a very successful system because just look how South-West Africa has flourished since 1950. Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the one member on the opposite side who ought to know why South-West Africa has flourished since 1950. It did so because a National Party was in power which displayed positive thinking, and vision, in respect of the future development of South-West Africa.

What do you have to say about the National Party in the Transvaal? Look what a sorry spectacle they present.

The hon. member knows that the United Party, the former governors of South-West Africa, followed an absolutely unwise policy in respect of taxation for example. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that mining companies, such as diamond mining companies for example which simply dig the diamonds out of the ground and put nothing back paid a paltry tax. They ran away with the profits of South-West Africa and paid a paltry tax on it, and only after the National Party came to power in South-West Africa and forced the mining companies to pay a proper tax could we afford the funds to develop South-West Africa. Mr. Speaker, there are two principal reasons why South-West Africa has developed successfully since 1950. The first is the fact that the National Party came to power and the second is that the National Party is a party which knew what the ultimate future of South-West Africa would be and which did not hide it under a bushel. In other words, overseas investors gained greater confidence in the future of South-West Africa because they knew that the party and the Administration which was in power there intended forming a close unity between South-West Africa and the Republic of South Africa.

I want to mention another example. The hon. member for South Coast, who is not present here now, mentioned karakul pelts. I want to mention a few figures to you in this regard. In 1950, when we took over, South-West Africa produced 2,607,000 pelts, and this gave the farmers there an income of R10,122,000. But those hon. members’ allies in South-West Africa had done absolutely nothing to advertise the karakul pelts abroad. All they relied upon were the vagaries of fashion in Paris. They did not launch any advertisement campaign for the karakul pelt. But the National Party which came into power in 1950, realized that the karakul pelt production could be increased if the necessary advertising campaign were launched abroad, and that is in fact what was done. In 1963 only 2,273,000 pelts were produced; in other words more than 300,000 less than in 1950. Do you know, Sir, what the yield was expressed in rands? It was R15,076,000—more than during the best year under the United Party Government. This is because we came forward with an advertising campaign abroad.

The most important point the hon. member for South Coast made in his speech to-day was the following. He asked what would now happen in South-West Africa as far as its karakul pelt production was concerned. Sir, the hon. member has not the faintest notion of what is happening as far as pelt production is concerned. Does the hon. member not know that South-West Africa and the Republic launched a joint advertising campaign abroad? In the first few years South-West Africa launched that campaign alone, and afterwards did so jointly with the Republic. Does he not know that the karakul pelts of South-West Africa and the Republic are marketed jointly? The hon. member is quite ignorant; he does not know what is going on there. This is only an example. I want to ask members opposite the following question: If they want South-West Africa to fend for itself and this should result in a federation, what would happen? Does he know what happened in regard to the foot and mouth campaign in South-West Africa? Does he know that the Department of Agriculture of South-West Africa alone spent R10 million because it had to fight on a wide front, along the Botswana border? We are very grateful for the fact that the Department of Agriculture of the Republic, which did not in fact have any responsibility in that regard, made a voluntary contribution. I am merely mentioning this as an example to prove that if South-West Africa should form a federation it would have to combat those things on its own through its own department. That is one example of the advantageousness of this new adjustment.

Sir, I can tell you that since the Odendaal plan was made known a development has taken place in South-West Africa which is simply unbelievable. That hon. member for Bezuidenhout who was formerly the member for Namib will not recognize South-West Africa to-day if he saw it. He will drive along a tarred road from the Orange River to the Kunene. If he goes to Okatana in Ovamboland, he will find one of the most modern hospitals in the whole of Africa. [Interjection.] Yes. I concede that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was in Ovamboland. He flew over South-West Africa to get there. But if he could see the development in regard to public buildings and the optimism which prevails in South-West Africa he will find it unbelieveable. Is the hon. member aware that if he arrives in Windhoek as a newcomer to-day, he will not even find an outside room to stay in, because there is such a spirit of optimism prevailing there?

Even in my time it was like that.

Investors converged on South-West Africa after the Odendaal plan was published. Investors are converging on South-West Africa, because they know that its economy which was linked to fluctuating assets such as the diamond-mining industry and the fishing industry, will now be supported by the tremendously strong economy of the Republic, which is based on gold. In addition the hon. member for South Coast stated that the Odendaal plan is a very fine one, but what is being done for the Whites? Sir, just as is the case here in the Republic the National Party Government in South-West Africa need not ask itself what is being done for the Whites; it knows that whatever it is doing, even in the Bantu areas, it is doing in the interests of the Whites. That hon. member and his party are the last people who should ask that question, i.e. what are we doing for the Whites. They should never utter words like that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that with this legislation which is being introduced today, a new spirit of optimism is prevailing in South-West Africa. It will usher in a new phase of development in the history of South Africa. The hon. members opposite will stand disgraced one day as the people who opposed this development. I want to tell hon. members opposite that when they come to South-West Africa one day they will find that they are very unwelcome guests there, because they will stand accused there as those people who opposed the development of South-West Africa. I say we are reaching the beginning of the end now—the end of the United Party. When the by-election in Windhoek takes place on 5th March, South-West Africa will reply to the standpoint which the United Party of the Republic has put forward in this debate. They must take note of the result on 5th March, and they would then be wise never to set foot in South-West Africa again because they will find that their party and their allies in the Territory are being rejected there.

Mr. Speaker, I have never, in such a short speech, come across such a confusion of concepts as those we have just had from the hon. member for Middelland. I do not want to reply again now to arguments which we have already replied to during the Second-Reading debate, but let me deal with a few of the hon. member’s points.

The hon. member referred to race federation. Does the hon. member want to tell me that he is not aware of the fact that the official policy of this side, which is called race federation, has two bases? In the first instance there is the basis of population or race or nation, whichever he wants to call it, and in the second instance it has a territorial basis. That is why this party, for example, advocates the development of areas such as the Transkei on a larger scale than the Government in fact does, the retention of those areas. He uses the term race federation; and that is why I was one of those who just by way of debate suggested that because there was confusion it would perhaps be a good thing to consider another term. The concept of race federation has a territorial as well as a population basis for the very simple reason that we have identifiable areas, such as the Transkei and others for example, and we have population groups such as the Coloureds and the Indians, who do not have territories of their own, and who therefore have to be dealt with on a different basis. That is why there are the two bases, although the concept is described as race federation.

The hon. member was completely confused as far as the concept of closer ties or incorporation was concerned. The hon. member is of course correct when he states that most statesmen, and that includes this party as well, to a much greater extent in fact than the governing party, have always advocated the closest possible ties between the Territory and the Republic, the former Union of South Africa. But annexation or incorporation, or whichever word one uses, must be defined, not so? There is a difference between the form which incorporation must take, and the concept of incorporation. [Interjections.] Now give me a chance, I listened to the hon. member when he was speaking. When America incorporated Hawaii and Alaska into the U.S.A., did they become provinces? No, they were incorporated on a federal basis. There are different bases on which one can unite territories, and this does not prejudice unity in any way. The unity is accepted. America is as patriotic a unity as one can find anywhere, and so is Australia. I can mention numerous examples. When we talk of a federative relationship then the unity is in no respect weaker than that found in a unitary state. To tell the truth, we are not really a unitary state at all. The hon. member spoke about the National Convention, and the joining of the four provinces. If we want to form an absolute union then we may as well abolish the provincial boundaries tomorrow. Why have provincial boundaries at all? When the Union was established the provinces reserved certain basic rights. The Natives and the Coloureds had the right to vote only in the Cane and in Natal but not in the Transvaal and the Free State. No Indian was allowed into the Free State. Indians were not allowed free exit from Natal. Is that a unitary state? No, a unitary state would mean that there were no such boundaries. But even our Union has many federal elements. It does not have a purely unitary status. Originally the provinces came together on certain bases. Inter alia, this Parliament could not alter the provincial boundaries without the consent of the provinces. The Constitution contained many other elements of federation which I do not want to go into now, but I just want to point out to the hon. member that when one unites territories on the high political level there are numerous forms of unification. There is the purely unitary, the semi-federal with provincial demarcations, as is the case to-day, and the federal system, which itself has many forms. Throughout the world one will find that there is not one federation which is precisely the same as another. It is therefore a complete confusion of concepts if the hon. member states that our standpoint is that South-West Africa should fend for itself. He is someone who ought to know better. He is a doctor. He gives himself out to be a man who has some knowledge of constitutional law. If I have to judge from this speech of his, he knows absolutely nothing about federation. It is no use saying that South-West Africa is no different. It is different. After all, the Government has just decided that the Territory has international status. In other words, it is in a quite different position from that of the provinces.

But then he made a long song and dance here about federations which had failed. I can do the same about democracies which have failed. There are numerous systems which have failed in specific countries. There are countries which have our system and which have nevertheless also failed. It is very interesting. When the hon. member gets to know his history he will find that federations only failed where the colonial power forced a federation upon the population of a former colony.

And then withdrew.

Yes. Whether it was England, France or Holland that was the colonial master, it worked out a plan for the area which suited its own purpose. The system for the inhabitants did not grow organically. Those federations failed, because the people never wanted it. Take for example the Rhodesian federation. When it was established by Britain it had not grown organically. Two elements of that federation rejected it in advance because they believed it would bring them under Southern Rhodesia. Consequently Britain forced it upon them, and the moment it was established it became a question of prestige to them to destroy it again. But where federations have developed organically in the world they have been an outstanding success.

Do you know that even the U.N.S.W.P. rejects the federation system which you are proposing?

No, the hon. member is wrong as far as that goes, but it makes no difference now. I cannot speak on behalf of the U.N.S.W.P., and I do not pass myself off as one either. But the fact of the matter is that some of the best governed countries in the world, where there is a diversity of population, are in fact federations, for example Switzerland, the U.S.A. and Australia. Germany, one of the most modern states to receive a new constitution after the Second World War, is a federation. Czechoslovakia has now found that in order to preserve the peace between the Czechs and the Slovaks and still retain a unity it had to become a federation. One of the most successful federations is Yugoslavia, where there are six population groups, of which some differ from one another more than we differ from the Coloureds. Brazil is also a federation. More than 50 per cent of the population of the world are living and being governed in successful federations. I admit that there can be failures, but the reason for the failure is usually that the colonial masters try to enforce a plan which did not grow out of the nations in question.

To return to the Bill: By piloting this Bill through the Second Reading now, the Government has not done the Republic nor South-West Africa a favour. Up to now the people of South-West Africa have had all the benefits which a territory could wish to have. It enjoys common citizenship with the Republic, with all the privileges which that implies, and in addition it has an exceptionally large representation in this Parliament. Its safety and security was and is guaranteed to the best of the Republic’s ability, and any hostilities were a joint effort directed outwards. In addition South-West Africa has up to now enjoyed such a large measure of local government that it was possible for it to retain its interesting character and to give immediate attention to the requirements of its people. Its large measure of local government enabled it to administer the country with full consideration for the special and different conditions of the Territory. I cannot see how the Territory of South-West Africa could be in a better position that it is at the moment. For this reason I stated in the debate that the history of South-West Africa during the past two decades has been one of growth and progress. I am not talking now about the injection which the Government gave it with the Odendaal Report. It is obvious that when the Government invests a large amount, for example, to build a new capital in Malawi, it is going to give the country an injection which will result in a major economic revival. However, it is a temporary measure, and one cannot do this with any country in Africa. I was not talking about the injection by the Government which came from without, because that can happen under any system. When I spoke about the growth of South-West Africa, I was speaking about the constant growth over the past 20 years and more under the administrative dispensation as it exists at present. That growth was impressive and the hon. member is quite at liberty to state now that this was the case because his party came into power. It is a matter of opinion, and he is entitled to his. However, where he is quite wrong, is in the following case: In reality, the great revival, just as in the case of the Republic, came after the Second World War, because the uncertainty under which South-West Africa suffered, disappeared after the Second World War. Certainty did not come as a result of the Bill which is now before the House. The fear people had in the thirties, before the War, was that South-West Africa would be taken away from South Africa. At present it is difficult to find a house in South-West Africa, but when I moved to South-West Africa just after the War I had literally to live with my one foot in the garage. The growth had begun at that early juncture, and even at that time it was difficult to find accommodation. Who was responsible for this, is a matter of opinion, but that is not my argument. The hon. member is welcome to entertain the idea that it came as a result of his party, because that still strengthens my argument that South-West Africa grew and progressed under the present system of self-government. They recognized the needs of South-West Africa and took immediate steps to do what they deemed to be in the best interests of the country. However, this Bill will result in a change in South-West Africa. In the first place South-West Africa will now lose the heart of local government, a system which functioned with so much success. They are now being subjected to a long-distance bureaucracy, and they will gradually lose their distinctive local personality. In the second place the internal affairs of South-West Africa were never up to now the subject of any particular difference of opinion in this House. In view of its position abroad and for the international status which the Government now says it has, it was a good thing. During the 19 years those hon. members have been sitting here, there were never any disputes in this House about the internal affairs of South-West Africa. But, Sir, you must remember that South-West Africa is now being given its own estimates, which will be submitted to Parliament here. The Government has decided that there must be uniformity, because that is the principle which is now being accepted in the Bill. Should people in South-West Africa be granted benefits in future, such as tax benefits, interest benefits and subsidy benefits, which interest groups in the Republic do not receive, these will, as surely as I am sitting here, be subjected to close scrutiny. Unpleasantness, bad feelings and clashes will result from this. Most of the clashes will originate amongst their own people and from the interest groups which support them. They will ask them to account for the fact that one section is being accorded different treatment from the other. It is a pity that South-West Africa’s internal affairs, which have, because of its special position, never been the subject of fierce debate or dispute or political clashes, should now be dragged nto the thick of the political struggle in this Parliament.

As a result of the Second Reading of this Bill, South-West Africa is now on the road to uniformity with the provinces, which will in itself set a chain reaction in motion. If they want uniformity with the provinces—its representatives here themselves say that this is what it wants, and they tell us that the people in South-West Africa want it and that it gives them a feeling of security—surely it means that they will want it in all respects. I do not think that they will tell me that, i-f it is so important now that there should be uniformity, there should be uniformity in all respects. They have now adopted a course of uniformity. If it must be uniform in all respects, the position of their representatives will also become implicated. The question will then arise why this should not be placed on a provincial basis as well. I am stating at this early juncture that we (not to-day, because there is no occasion for this now) will in due course have to give our attention to that matter. We would then like to hear the arguments of that side in the light of the principle which they have already accepted now with the Second Reading of this Bill. Now that they have chosen uniformity with the provinces as a direction, all the laws of the Republic will gradually have to be made applicable to South-West Africa. After all, that is the idea. I can think of many inflammable measures, such as those in respect of group areas and race classification, without which South-West Africa got along very well and will also be able to get along very well without in future. If these are applied, it will create endless difficulties, not only for the Government, but also as far as foreign relations are concerned. The Minister was conspicuously careful not to reply to the questions I put in regard to these matters. However, I want to tell him that we will not leave it at that. We will seek our replies in respect of the questions on which laws of this kind will be made applicable to South-West Africa.

But what about new legislation now? Has the hon. the Minister thought of new legislation in future? Every time contentious legislation is brought before Parliament, which happens from time to time, the position of South-West Africa will also be automatically implicated. As I have said, this is the territory to which the government, and I believe wrongly, went and accorded international status. This matter we shall also discuss later.

In conclusion I just want to say that with clause 20 of this Bill a principle is being introduced into our legislation which is absolutely deplorable. A government usually has the power to impose its will in the long run. That we admit, but democratic principles demand that it should subject what it wants to do to opinions and arguments before it imposes its will in the form of legislation. Here the Government is now taking to itself the power of drafting legislation for South-West Africa and forcing its will upon South-West Africa without having subjected it beforehand to the opinions or to the arguments put forward in Parliament. What is more, it was done without even having subjected it beforehand to the opinions of the representatives of South-West Africa in this House. I am sorry to have to say this, but never before has the representation of South-West Africa in this House been so spiritless and unimportant as it is at present. My own feelings are that the purpose behind clause 20 is the fact that the Government wants to introduce contentious measures in South-West Africa in regard to which it deliberately wants to avoid debate in this House. But, if I am wrong in this opinion …

If this does not happen, can I call you a liar?

No, most certainly not, because I am saying that this is only my opinion. The Minister is entitled to say that I am wrong. These are my feelings, but if the effect of this clause is, as the Minister and the hon. member for Omaruru said, only to introduce minor amendments, even then I will still say that this clause is a rejection of the entire basis on which parliamentary government rests. I shall therefore request a division against the Third Reading.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has once again labelled clause 20 as a contentious measure. He accuses the Government of having ulterior motives in regard to the use which is to be made of the measures in the South-West African legislation, in which he perceives nothing but danger. We perceive no dangers in those measures, only efficient administration. The hon. member mentioned long-distance bureaucracy, involving distances no longer than those in the Republic of South Africa at present. He said that South-West Africa runs the risk of losing its local, personal character. I really think that it is an insult to the average South-West African citizen to say that South-West Africa will lose its local character. I just cannot see how the natural character of South-West Africa and of the average citizen of South-West Africa can be lost because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout makes such statements which he is actually fabricating. The hon. member said that the fear of the Second World War had passed and that development consequently took place in South-West Africa. This indicates once more how out of touch the United Party members in this House are with the problems in South-West Africa. The fear had always existed, whether the war was over or not. Since 1948 there have been international complications in connection with South-West Africa which actually reached their peak with the judgment of the International Court in The Hague. The fluctuation which always occurred in the international situation, showed its effects in financial investments in South-West Africa. This was especially the case in the private sector. As soon as the international situation in respect of South-West Africa was satisfactory, people invested money there. But as soon as the international situation became critical, they kept away from South-West Africa. Even the ordinary citizen in South-West Africa came to invest his money and his savings here in the Republic of South Africa. This was specifically done out of fear of the international situation. If one were to draw a graph of the relationship of investments to the international situation, one would notice the correspondence in the two curves.

I just want to deal with another point which the hon. member mentioned here. He said that the large measure of local government which there is in South-West Africa, was now being removed. The hon. member for South Coast spoke of the “element of pride” in this situation where, as he said, one is now actually taking away South-West Africa’s status. The general feeling in South-West Africa is that if closer ties are formed with the Republic of South Africa, the status of South-West Africa is actually increased. Even if closer ties are formed with South-West Africa on a provincial basis, there will then be greater respect on the international front for South-West Africa and also for the proprietary rights of the Republic of South Africa. There is already respect in Africa for the achievements of the Republic of South Africa as part of the African continent and if South-West Africa could now draw closer to the Republic of South Africa, it will then command the respect of the rest of the world. Here I am thinking especially of the Afro-Asian states because we know what they are saying to-day about South Africa in its relationship to South-West Africa. But as long as South-West Africa’s present position is maintained, the Afro-Asian states will constantly exploit the relationship between South Africa and South-West Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout again referred to the United Party’s race federation policy. I must say that that policy of theirs is now even more obscure to me after having listened to the hon. member. The hon. member said that their policy rests on a territorial as well as a population basis, but he said nothing of the political basis. Mr. Speaker, this question of the political basis of a federation has already been thrashed out in this House and I do not want to elaborate further. But it is clear to me that the United Party is now deviating slightly from that policy, because the hon. member is afraid to Speak of the political basis of the policy. Mr. Van den Berg, the U.N.S.W.P. candidate in the by-election in Windhoek, has now altogether dissociated himself from this federation policy. In an interview Mr. Van den Berg denied that his party now accepted the United Party policy of race federation as set out by Sir De Villiers Graaff. He said in addition that—

They reject it. Sir, we have already heard in the Second-Reading debate what the actual situation in South-West Africa is in respect of the U.N.S.W.P. standpoint about race federation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had a lot to say about the other elements of federation. He said that there are several forms of diversity. That is so, of course, but with us there is no misunderstanding about this question of the political basis of federation, because in South Africa, with its diversity of races, it will create chaos. On one occasion General Smuts himself said that South Africa was a country in which all the problems of the world were lumped together in the same cauldron. The hon. member rightly said that one experiences organic growth in any society, and he alleges that there is organic growth in the direction of a federation, but on the contrary the organic growth in South-West Africa and in South Africa is as follows: The people all feel that that organic growth is in the direction of unity; why must we oppose this if the people feel that way about it? But that side of the House now wants to steer it in the direction of a federation, in the direction of the chaotic conditions which are known everywhere throughout the world.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast also said—

He also said—

Mr. Speaker, in the rest of the world where there is integration, where equal rights are given to people in one society, there one specifically has chaos; there is no peace. Here in South Africa and in South-West Africa there is peace and one can discuss matters in a much calmer atmosphere. And then the hon. member speaks of “the disharmony among the races’’ and he says that this legislation is “untimely”. I simply cannot imagine a greater misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs. It simply proves once more that hon. members of the United Party have no knowledge of the actual state of affairs in South-West Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also foresaw that if the services of South-West Africa were integrated with those of the Republic of South Africa, it would bring about great frustration. The hon. member also mentioned the special circumstances which are emphasized in the White Paper or memorandum. He also sketched all the exceptions which are mentioned in the memorandum. He then also predicted that “as far as one can see into the future we in this House might just as well prepare ourselves for amendments, adjustments and patchwork, with this Bill as its basis”. That is the hon. member’s prediction. He evidently does not realize that in the course of time all legislation must be adjusted to new circumstances which the legislator could not originally take into account, because the legislator is no prophet. That is actually the basis of clause 20—which has been inserted for the purpose of administrative efficiency—to which he objects so strongly. It is, of course, typical of that hon. member that he arrogates to himself a prophetic role. Many laws have been passed in this House which subsequently had to be amended to adapt to new circumstances. I just want to mention one Act here as an example, because I have a great interest in it personally, namely Act No. 20 of 1967, which is generally known as the Mining Rights Act. Over the years many amendments have been introduced, e.g. in Schedule III of that Act, 76 statutes were repealed. Those statutes which affect different provinces, individually, remained in force up to 1967. In the same way the affairs of South-West Africa can be administered. I just want to mention some of these laws to you; they are the statutes under which we previously dealt with the whole mining industry in South Africa. In the first place I refer to Act No. 12 of 1865, Cape of Good Hope, “The Mining Leases Act. 1865”. In addition there are the Acts of 1877, 1883, 1898, 1905 and 1907. Then, in respect of Natal one finds “The Natal Mines Act, 1899”, Act No. 43 of 1899. Then there is Act No. 34 of 1905. “Amendment of Natal’s Mines Act of 1899”.

Turning to the Transvaal, there is Act No. 34 of 1908, and then there is the Act of 1910, and in 1918 one has the Transvaal Mining Leases and Mine Mineral Law Amendment Act. Then there is Act No. 10 of 1924, which regulates trading on mining land. These are all statutes which were passed in this House and which were repealed last year. One can go on to Acts No. 13 and No. 19 of 1936, and then there is Act No. 19 of 1955, the O.F.S. Metals Mining Amendment Act, and Act No. 20 of 1955, the Natal Mines Amendment Act. 1955. Then one comes to Act No. 39 of 1957, the Transvaal Gold Law Amendment Act, and also to Act No. 40 of 1957, the Natal Mines Amendment Act. This shows very clearly that even when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was in this House he himself was guilty of patchwork. He now prophesies that there will be patchwork in the future if this law in connection with South-West Africa is passed, but he himself was guilty of patchwork while he sat in this House. Notwithstanding the fact that all these laws have now been repealed, certain rights were obtained which are still recognized to-day under the legislation which was passed last year.

While we are now dealing with these mining laws, the hon. member for South Coast asked what would happen if oil were discovered in South-West Africa one day, and what would happen to the revenue accruing from that. I am amazed at his concern because it is set down very clearly in the legislation that all revenue in this connection would go to the South-West Africa Account, which would cover all the deficits which may occur. Therefore I do not know what the hon. member’s concern is all about, because the point is that all the benefits will go to South-West Africa, not to the Republic. But it is very clear from the Second Reading debate that they have always wanted the benefit of mining matters in South-West Africa for the Republic.

Of course, certain standpoints were also adopted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in connection with the financial arrangements and he made a great point of the document which was, inter alia, signed by the present Administrator in 1952, and approved by the National Party Congress. This just goes to show the mental condition of the Opposition, because they believe that if a decision was taken in 1952, under the circumstances pertaining in those days, the circumstances still remain the same to-day, but I can assure him that the circumstances have changed a great deal since 1952. If they had not changed, there would have been stagnation in South-West Africa. But it is specifically as a result of the tremendous development in South-West Africa and the metamorphosis which has taken place there that we have this position, which was beautifully depicted by the hon. member for Middelland. The changed and flourishing circumstances which have set in since 1952 actually necessitates this legislation which is now before the House.

Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that this legislation will now lead to less efficient administration and he objects to the tendency towards making things uniform, and he points out the disadvantages of uniformity. But as the hon. member for Middelland indicated in connection with the karakul industry, all the agricultural organizations tend to co-operate with those of the Republic. What objection can this Opposition then have if the people of South-West Africa co-operate with those in the Republic, in view of the fact that their interests and problems are the same? Look at the great advantage for the karakul farmers in the Republic resulting from co-operation with the karakul farmers in South-West Africa, and also from the overseas advertising campaign. I can only see advantages for the karakul farmers in the Republic if they are able to make use of the experience of the farmers in South-West Africa, and if there is an exchange of ideas. But the Opposition apparently does not want co-operation or the exchanging of ideas. In my opinion one of the surest proofs that this legislation is necessary is specifically the co-operation in the field of agriculture. Uniformity already exists in connection with traffic legislation. We heard here in the hon. House about the roads and road safety and about attempts to make the ordinances of the different provinces the same. There are now uniform ordinances in all the provinces and in South-West Africa, which are of great advantage to the travelling citizens of South-West Africa and of the Republic.

Then there are also the fisheries. The hon. member made a great fuss of the question of efficient administration. I just want to remind him of the differences which exist in connection with matters pertaining to fishing. We are all aware of the difficulties which arose as a result of the issuing of fishing licences for the fishing waters along the coast of South-West Africa. These differences grew out of the dual control. These difficulties arose out of the historical situation which we inherited even before the German occupation of South-West Africa took place, because all the islands along the coast were then already occupied by Britain and the Cape Colony later obtained control over all those islands. Those islands are at present under the control of the Republic and the administration of South-West Africa has no authority over them. Of course the problem arose: Which waters belonged to whom? If there were unitary control, those differences would not have existed. Just think of all the overlapping in general, the unnecessary expenditure in the overlapping of work. I am now just thinking of the different fishing commissions which were appointed. The South-West Africa Administration appointed a fishing commission and the Republic of South Africa subsequently also appointed a fishing commission. Would it not be better if the work of those two commissions, together with the brain power, manpower and time spent on interviews and work, were done by one commission? It can eliminate the unnecessary doubling up of costs and requisite manpower—and manpower is specifically so hard to come by. Although there is co-operation, overlapping also occurs in the field of oceanographic research. This research is extremely important for our fisheries and for the defence of our country, but with dual control it simply cannot work efficiently. I am now thinking of the costly work done in the field of research by the C.S.I.R. the overhead costs of which are carried by the Republic, when all is said and done.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that there is one mistake which we must not make, viz. “To even create the appearance of the withdrawal of the Whites from South-West Africa”. Thereby he insinuates that this legislation creates the appearance that the Whites will be withdrawn from South-West Africa. Furthermore the hon. member said, “No great country whose people have gone forth to do pioneer work, has ever called its children back to so-called safety and security”. This proves once more how out of touch the hon. member is with South-West Africa. He does not have insight into the character of the South-West African. The South-West African does not regard South-West Africa as his temporary abode, but as his permanent one. South-West Africa’s northern borders are actually the beacon-lights of Darkest Africa. With this legislation we contemplate making South-West Africa the furthest border of the Republic of South Africa so that it can remain the beacon-light in Darkest Africa with all its problems.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that one must say for the hon. member who has just sat down, that he very shrewdly observed that, although the rules state that one may not read one’s speech, they certainly do not make any mention that one may not read Acts of Parliament or “uitknipsels”. What the hon. gentleman who has just sat down really had to say in connection with this Bill, still escapes me. He did, however, as did the hon. member for Middelland, deal with the question of race federation. I hope the hon. member for Middelland would perhaps do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say to him in reply. Oh well! So little difference does it make to hon. members on that side of the House, that whether they hear what is happening or not, they are obviously going to vote one way or the other. The hon. member for Middelland, particularly, could not understand the conception of a federation that was not a territorial federation. In all the examples that he gave us, he dealt with territorial federation only.

Is yourfederation a racial federation or a territorialfederation?

It is called race federation. And as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout explained, it has a territorial … [Interjections.] Does the hon. member want an answer to his question? Well, then just listen for a moment. It has a territorial connotation where that is possible and it has a race connotation only where it is not possible to have a territorial connotation. In other words, you can have a territorial unit where you have a homogeneous unit like the Transkei but where you do not have it, you can take a race group as a unit in your federal scheme. What I want to ask the hon. member is, “Is there a homeland for the Coloured people or not?” The answer is obviously that there is not. Therefore, what has this Government done? This Government has provided what in effect is a communal council for the Coloured group, the race group of the Coloured people. This council is going to legislate upon those matters which affect only the Coloured people; it is going to have an executive committee to administer those matters relating only to the Coloured people. It has no territorial limits whatsoever. They are all over the place. I remember distinctly that this matter was debated in the Second Reading debate of the Coloured Council Bill. This question was put to the hon. Minister in charge of it and he asked me: “Why do you ask a question like that when your policy is race federation?” That is precisely what the Government itself has done. What is the difference? What is the Coloured Council if it is not in fact a communal council as we envisage? Is this not the solution which you will have to get to, if you in fact have no territorial limits for a race group? What has happened to the Coloureds? What is the hon. member’s answer to that? This is what they have done. If this Government can do it, surely someone else can do it, and do it more intelligently! What is more, they intend to do precisely the same thing for the Indian people. If the hon. members opposite are intelligent, they would listen to what we suggest. They would then go further and have yet another such council in respect of those Bantu who do not have a place in a homeland. Then it would be getting some-where near to making sense. However, that is what it means, i.e. where you do have a territorial area—like the Transkei which you can treat as a unit—it will be a unit in your federal scheme. There is no difficulty about it. I hope the hon. member appreciates what it is all about.

How many parliaments are you going to have?

We are not going to have as many parliaments as this Government proposes to have. I have forgotten how many there are; I think there are something like 22, while some of the nations have a population of say 10,000. What is the smallest race group in South-West Africa?

The Bushmen count 15,000.

I appreciate that there is a semantic difference between the word “nasie” and the word “nation” when one speaks Afrikaans or when one speaks English. When you talk about a “nation” in English, meaning an entity which in international law will have sovereignty, a “nation” consisting of 15,000 people and land-locked between other nations with populations of 50,000, and placed in areas one would not describe as places where nature has given of its fulness, then one begins to wonder what in fact one is talking about when one talks about a parliament. The hon. member ought to know very well what is our plan for South-West Africa. We believe there should be a northern zone and a southern zone and each of these zones should have an affiliation on a federal basis with the Republic. The hon. member knows this. Surely, we are not going to have a conglomeration of various parliaments. This Bill is part and parcel of the plan of this Government in relation to South-West Africa. Why does this Bill have to be brought forward at this stage. Why this is necessary at all, no one has explained. What is the urgency of it? We had legislation last year, I think it was Act 54 of 1968, the Development of Self-Government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, and why there is such urgency about this measure no one has yet told us. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us. Why is there this hurry, why is it so necessary? As far as this refers to the people of the Territory—and it only refers to the Whites there—it is half-baked. Without any doubt it is a diminution of the rights of the white people in South-West Africa, compared with the rights they have had up to this day. Their right of self-determination in respect of certain matters relating to them only, without any doubt will be diminished by this Bill. Not only have they been diminished but their own powers to deal with those matters which they have been left can be interfered with at the whim of a Minister. No provincial council in this country can be subjected to such interference at the whim of a Minister as the South-West African Legislative Assembly and its Administration are subject to in terms of this Bill. There is no doubt that they have at this stage more powers than a provincial council, and now they are to be given less powers, and moreover they are to be treated on a basis which is not very far from a contempt of them and their right to deal with matters that affect them only. Throughout the Second Reading Debate and the Committee Stage of this Bill we on this side objected to the manner in which the powers of Parliament are affected, the powers of this Parliament to legislate in respect of the Territory. We heard many arguments, and many strange arguments, and one of the arguments put forward by the Minister was that the State President has always had power to legislate by proclamation for South-West Africa.

It is a fact, not an argument.

Of course it is a fact.

Then why do you say it was put forward as an argument?

The fact is the Governor-General only got those powers in 1919 because this Parliament gave them to him. That is the first fact. The second fact is they gave them to him on a temporary basis, and only in 1921 was it made on a permanent basis. In 1925 the whole picture began to change and there was then provision made for the first time for a Legislative Assembly in the Territory, partially elected, partially nominated. It is also a fact that in 1949 it was provided that Parliament should have the power to make laws for the Territory in respect of those matters on which they were not competent to make laws. What did this Parliament leave the Governor-General after 1949? They left him the power to make laws in respect of those excluded matters, provided—and this is very important—that those laws he made by proclamation were not repugnant to or inconsistent with an Act of this Parliament. That is the whole difference.

It is not altogether correct, it is only those which apply to South-West; I pointed that out yesterday.

Obviously those which apply to South-West.

If it is obvious, why did you say so?

One feels there are some things which one does not have to say, things which are so obvious, especially to the Minister who is also a lawyer, and the hon. learned member for Omaruru. Does one have to be a lawyer to know it is only in respect of South-West Africa that the State President can make these laws by proclamation, when you read in the Act, “The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette and in the Official Gazette make laws for the Territory …” in relation to certain matters, and then you see “the Territory” is defined as South-West Africa. Surely you do not have to be a lawyer to know that. You have to just read what is in the Act. [Interjection.] It is a pity hon. members do not read what is in the Act and what is in this Bill.

Now read further.

I am pleased the hon. member for Omaruru raises this, he wants me to read further. The hon. member in the Committee Stage yesterday raised what he thought was a “bull point”, and the “bull point” was this. I read section 38 (2)—

which gives him the power to do it—

—and these are the magic words in the hon. member’s mind—

He says the words, “subject to the provisions of subsection (7)” restrict the power.

No, read the last portion.

All right, “which applies in the territory”, is that it?

In the case only of existing law, it need not be repugnant to any other law.

But of course. Another thing which surely the Minister knows is that no Act of this Parliament applies in the Territory unless in the Act it is specifically stated that it applies to South-West Africa. If that is not stated then it does not apply.

Exactly.

The hon. member says “exactly”. Then I ask this question. Why then is the power being taken for the Minister to amend Acts of Parliament applying to South-West Africa? Obviously any other Act is irrelevant, it is only an Act applying to the Territory which he can amend. But it goes further than that. Does not clause 20 go much further than that, does not clause 20 say in effect …

Of course it goes further, we never said anything else.

All right, now we are clear at last at this stage. At this Third Reading of the Bill, it is now clear that it is in relation to Acts applying in the Territory that this power exists. When the Minister says the power to make laws by proclamation for South-West Africa has always been there, the important distinction was that those proclamations should not be inconsistent with an Act of this Parliament applying to South-West Africa. That is what I have said before and that is the essential difference. Furthermore, even if it was not repugnant to such an Act of Parliament, it nevertheless had to be laid on the Table and could be negatived by this House and by the Other Place on a resolution during that same session. There is the difference. In other words, what we have anticipated all along since 1949 is that this Parliament, and two of its constituent elements, should have control at all times of anything that was done by the State President legislative-wise in South-West Africa. Now we have the situation where the Minister now takes the power not only to amend Acts of Parliament applying to South-West Africa, which this Parliament has decided shall apply there in the form in which they appear, but furthermore the power to apply to the Territory laws in an amended form which this Parliament did not decide should apply there and which it in fact decided should not apply to South-West Africa.

No, you are putting it wrongly.

No, the one is the corollary of the other.

No court would ever uphold you on that point.

If the Acts of Parliament only apply in South-West Africa when Parliament says they should apply, then surely it is not stretching the use of the language too far to say that if Parliament did not say it should apply, Parliament intended that it should not apply.

Do you mean to say that Parliament applied its mind to the question as to whether it should be applied in South-West Africa when the law was passed previously in this Parliament?

The hon. the Minister is on very dangerous ground when he now starts talking about Parliament applying its mind. This is the whole point. The hon. the Minister is a lawyer, and he knows, when he says that this will never be upheld in court, that the courts assume that the legislature is aware of certain matters. It is aware, for example, of its previous enactments. I am sure that the court will assume that Parliament is aware that, if it wants the law to apply to South-West Africa, it merely has to say so. If it does not say so then I think it is fair to assume that Parliamentt did not intend it to apply there. But that is a matter which does not really affect the argument. The fact of the matter is that the Minister has now taken more powers than Parliament itself has, in that sense. Our objection is that, even in relation to those matters where the State President could make the laws for the Territory, which were not repugnant to Acts of this Parliament applying in that territory, they had to be laid on the Table and they could be subject to a negative resolution, not by Parliament, but only by this House. Now he takes the power not just to make laws not inconsistent with Acts of Parliament, but to change Acts of Parliament themselves, to usurp the functions of this House, the functions of the Other Place and of Parliament itself, and not come back to this House at all. We moved an amendment in the Committee Stage to provide that any such amendment, such usurpation of our functions, by a member of the Executive, should be returned to this House, so that this House could express its approval or disapproval of what was done. But it was turned down flat. Now this is the Third Reading. This is now an occasion when the House is sitting as a House. The decision which will be voted for here by hon. members when the division bells ring, is going to be whether they are prepared to abandon their constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of the people they represent to make the laws of this country and the laws relating to South-West Africa, to the Executive. That is the decision in relation to the next division. It is offensive to Parliament itself that one should have a Bill such as this. The hon. the Minister has recognized this to an extent by saying that this power will extend only until 1971. But this does not affect the principle.

I have gone a long way to meet you in this.

The hon. the Minister has gone some way to meet us, and we indicated that we accepted it. Obviously, half a loaf is better than none. But the principle of the matter remains unaffected. Let me ask the hon. the Minister the following. He said when he introduced this Bill at the Second Reading that this provision was necessary, although it might never be used.

I said so, but it will probably be used.

But it will be used very occasionally.

Subsection (1) (a) may not be used, but the others very probably will be used.

At least, Sir, it will be used sparingly. Is it fair enough for us to assume that?

All right, that is fair enough.

If it is going to foe used sparingly, why does the hon. the Minister not want it to come back to Parliament for approval? What is he afraid of? Is he afraid that this House may not approve of what is done by the State President by proclamation?

I am not afraid of anything.

Let me ask the Minister then why he does not make provision for that?

It is not practical politics.

It is no good saying that it is not practical politics. We have not had any indication as yet as to why it is impracticable. As hon. members are aware, the amendment that we want for this matter to come back to Parliament, provides that if that proclamation or part of it is disapproved by resolution of this House, it will be “without prejudice to the validity of anything done in terms of such proclamation or of such provision thereof up to the date upon which it so ceased to be of force and effect, or to any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred as at the said date under and by virtue of such proclamation or such provision thereof”. In other words, from the practical point of view, which the hon. the Minister now makes the ground of his objection, there is no practical difficulty. One does it. The only practical difficulty is that this House will have to pay some attention to the activities of the Minister in amending its legislation. That is the only practical difficulty, and that is not a practical difficulty in the true sense of the word. Surely, the fact that we are obliged to examine how our Acts, the intentions of Parliament and the people, have been changed by a Minister, is our basic function. That is not a practical difficulty. Surely we all welcome the opportunity to say “Aye” or “No” to what the hon. the Minister has done. That is no answer to this at all. One wonders exactly then why it is the hon. the Minister does not want to come back to this House. Because every proclamation he makes, even with his own amendment, is going to continue to apply. It is so basic that really it beggars appreciation and description that a member of this House can abandon his rights! We are members of this House first, and members of a political party second. This is the place where the people are represented. We are not prepared to abandon our rights as members of the “Volksraad” to determine what any Minister or his department does. That is our constitutional right and we will not abandon it.

Now I ask the hon. members for South-West Africa—here they are: How can they vote for this? There is no provision made that they are going to be consulted when the Minister changes the laws of this Parliament applying to South-West Africa, or applies other laws to South-West Africa. Is the hon. the Minister going to consult them? We would like to hear this. We would like an answer to this. There is no provision in this Bill that he should consult them.

No.

Is the hon. the Minister going to consult them?

No.

If he is going to consult them, why does he not want to consult the rest of this Parliament? Because they also have an interest in it. I know the reason why the hon. gentlemen are going to abandon their rights. It is because they are members of a political party which has made a political decision—it is as simple as that—just in the same way as the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa decided that it wanted to abandon its particular rights by resolution, because every single one of them was a Nationalist. Exactly the same reason applies here. It is not a good enough reason when we are dealing with something as basic as this. The whole setup that exists now in relation to legislation of South-West Africa is something of which I have never seen the like. As I have said before, we now have four competing legislative authorities. Every time the Government deals with legislation of this sort as, for example, the Transkeian Acts, we find a provision that there are certain matters in relation to which both the Transkei Assembly and this Government may legislate. A couple of years ago we had the position that we legislated upon something upon which the Transkeian Assembly was competent to legislate, and had in fact legislated upon, but we legislated differently. This can go on and on. In the natural proper order of things we do not have all these competing authorities. I hope the hon. the Minister will answer me on this and also tell us whether he is going to consult or whether it is intended that the various Ministers will consult any Member of Parliament, especially the South-West African Members of Parliament, when Acts of Parliament relating to South-West Africa are amended in terms of this Bill by the Minister. When that recommendation is made to the State President will there be, with that recommendation, the views of the South-West African Members of Parliament or not?

Of course not.

This gets worse and worse, Mr. Speaker.

Do you want a small Parliament consisting of members from South-West Africa?

No, but if they are not even going to be consulted, one wonders what their function is. What is their function in this House and how can they possibly vote for this Bill? This is not good enough. Is the Minister going to consult any of the Senators on this matter?

No.

Two Senators are appointed by the Government on the basis of their special knowledge of the wants and wishes of the Coloured people of South-West Africa. What is their function going to be in this Parliament? Are they going to be consulted? [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the arguments of hon. members on that side of the House, I should like to discuss a minor matter about which the hon. member for Durban (North) and I got rather confused yesterday. The matter I should like to refer to is the interpretation of clause 17 of the Bill. The hon. member for Durban (North) and I had some doubts about its interpretation. This clause provides that notices in the Official Gazette will no longer be required. I should like to give a further explanation of this matter in brief. As I said yesterday, this really is a technical arrangement which puts the finishing touches to this legislation. The history of this matter is more or less as follows. In the first instance I want to mention the fact that the announcement of legislation in a Gazette or an Official Gazette, as the case may be, determines the date of the proclamation. In a case requiring the publication of a notice in the Gazette and/or the Official Gazette, one often has the problem that the two notices cannot appear simultaneously and that problems arise in connection with the date of commencement of such a proclamation. Initially the arrangement was that notices had to be published in the Official Gazette. Particularly in those cases where these were notices or proclamations which probably were applicable in South Africa as well as in South-West Africa, it happened in the past that the date of commencement created a problem. In 1957 an amendment was introduced, and this is to be found in section 37, subsection (5), of the principal Act. It reads as follows—

This provision was specially inserted in 1957 in order to eliminate the confusion and problems which had existed before that time. Because of an oversight, however, section 38 (1), was not amended and this section still provided for the publication of such a proclamation in the Gazette and in the Official Gazette. Because of this provision the problem of the date of commencement has continued to exist up to this time, and in order to rectify this we are now omitting the portion which provides that the notice should also appear in the Official Gazette. I am pleased that I am able to give the hon. member this information, but the hon. member will realize that one fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer. This one finds fairly often during a Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to think what the basic difference between the Government and the Opposition is in respect of this legislation, and I have come to the conclusion, especially in the light of the questions which have been asked here, that that difference simply is the difference between being a supporter of the National Party and a supporter of the United Party. An example of this is the question of the hon. member for South Coast, namely, “Why do you have to do this now?” As well as the question of the hon. member for Durban (North), namely, “Why the hurry?” The National Party has always been instrumental in developing South Africa. I want to ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether there is anything in respect of South-West Africa, constitutionally or administratively, which they can mention to me that was built up under a United Party Government. Under what Government did the Acts of 1925, 1949, 1951, 1957 and that of 1968 regarding South-West Africa, come into operation? After all, the United Party too was in power at times. But take South Africa itself. To-day those hon. gentlemen are just sitting back. They are grateful for and satisfied with the constitutional development of South Africa over the years. What did the United Party Government ever do in this regard when it was in power? If there had not been a National Party Government and a National Party—they will agree with me on this score—we would probably have found ourselves in a worse position to-day than that in which Rhodesia finds itself.

Have you never heard of the Status Laws of 1934?

That was all. The status laws were the ones that gave us the power to decide, but that party did not want to take any decision, and to-day it is the same old story. We want to develop and implement the powers which have been placed at our disposal. But they say. “No, why the hurry?” Their attitude is this: Let us not make any move; let things continue as they are.

“Let things develop.”

What about the Act of Union of 1910?

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Has anything that the Nationalist Government has done, been done outside the terms of the mandate?

No, that is not what I am saying. Hon. members opposite themselves agree with me that everything we are doing here, falls within the terms of the mandate we have been given.

It was we who got the mandate for you.

They laid the egg and left it out in the open, where it became rotten. We are hatching the egg and producing a chicken. That is the only difference.

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this measure for days. We heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that they on that side could not associate themselves with this legislation as it was going in a direction in which they did not believe. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, “We also want to do these things, but we do not believe in the way in which you are doing them; we believe in closer integration but we do not want that in this way.” Sir, we heard here about federations and federations and even more federations. I do not know whether other people know exactly what the United Party would have done with South-West Africa had they been in power. I do not know whether other people know this but I do not. Personally I think that they themselves do not know. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave us a very fine lecture here, with a great deal of self-satisfaction—because in his own opinion he has all the wisdom and other people have none—on a federation. He said, “It is true, there is a large variety of federations in the world; the one differs from the other.” This is true, but he did not tell us what kind of federation he wanted to apply in respect of South-West Africa.

[Inaudible.]

That is the essence of the matter. If hon. members do not believe in the direction in which we are moving, they have to show us another direction so that we may at least understand what they want. Then they should suggest to us in what direction to move.

Is it not clear?

No. Hon. members opposite also believe in closer integration. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, “We believe in closer integration but the direction in which you are moving is not the direction in which we believe”. Now, the hon. member for Pinelands comes along and says, “We want to leave the position as it is”.

How do they reconcile the two?

The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Durban (North) told us that their federation was based on two considerations. In the first place it is based on geographic areas and in the second place it has a racial basis, as in the case of the Coloureds whom he mentioned. Sir, we are not integrating the Coloureds here on a federal basis. How can he compare the position of the Coloureds in the sphere of politics, in terms of our policy, to the kind of federation they are advocating? Surely that is quite impossible. As soon as the Coloureds have their representative councils, they will no longer have any representatives in this House. The principle of a federation is that all these federal groups should have representation in this House …

But that is our policy.

… whether on a geographic basis or on a racial basis. Then why does the hon. member say that our policy with regard to the Coloureds also amounts to a policy of federation?

You have no policy.

The Prime Minister said that our children would have to work out the policy.

The hon. member for Durban (North) referred to the Transkei as though the Transkei too were to be brought into this Parliament as a federal group. This again is a brand new policy. I have never heard before that it was part of their policy that the Transkei should get representaion in Parliament as a separate geographic area on a federal basis.

You know nothing about the whole thing.

What they have been saying up to now is that the Bantu should have a certain number of representatives here on a federal basis. But if it now is their policy to give the Transkei representation in this House. I assume that they are also going to give representation to the Ovambo, the Damara and the Bushmen. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, my time is running out; hon. members opposite must please give me an opportunity to continue with my speech. I am not on my feet to try to work out a policy for the Opposition.

You cannot work out one for yourselves.

If they were to ask me to do so, and paid me well, I would work out a much better policy for them than the one they have now.

Your children have to work out your policy for you.

Order! The hon. the Minister should not canvass clients across the floor of this House.

The hon. member for South Coast spoke of constitutional changes. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I agreed yesterday that this measure, in outline, was not effecting important constitutional changes; the changes are administrative ones, and as a result of the changed administrative circumstances one may argue by implication that it does bring about constitutional changes as well, but actually these changes purely and simply are administrative ones. Powers which previously vested in South-West Africa with regard to the administration of that Territory, are now being transferred to and will be administered by this Government. The hon. member for South Coast said that the existing position had always been working well in South-West Africa: that South-West Africa had been governed admirably and that the Territory had been progressing. Of course it has, because a National Government has been in power. That is the answer and surely the hon. member knows that. The hon. member said that they had been going from strength to strength and that we were now injuring their honour, but, Sir, South-West Africa has asked for this measure. In 1964 a unanimous request came from them for these measures to be taken. The Opposition does not want to associate itself with the U.N.S.W.P., but it is working hand-in-hand with that party. Mr. Niehaus, the representative of the United Party in South-West Africa which has another name but which basically is the same as the United Party here, did not vote against this in the Legislative Assembly; he walked out when this decision was taken. Because he did not vote against this, it became a unanimous decision. If he had remained there and had voted against it, it would not have been a unanimous decision. The people in South-West Africa asked for this measure.

In 1934 their own party also made a unanimous request for this.

Sir, the things we are doing now, we are not doing because we think that South-West Africa has been administered badly over the past years. That is not the reason. We are doing this so that the Government of the Republic of South Africa may carry out its responsibilities towards South-West Africa more efficiently. The Government of the Republic has certain responsibilities towards South-West Africa, and instead of delegating all its responsibilities to a local body there, it is now taking this step. The more powers and the more responsibility it delegates to a local body there, the more it will be shirking its own responsibilities. The Government of the Republic will now be able to carry out the responsibilities it has towards South-West Africa more efficiently as it is delegating fewer of its administrative powers to South-West Africa and retaining more of those powers in its own hands and is applying direct administration rather than indirect administration there. This is not merely a question of good administration. It is also a question of carrying out the responsibilities which the Republic has towards South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of karakul pelts. I must say in all honesty that this Bill contains nothing with regard to karakul pelts. The memorandum does in fact mention karakul pelts. We discussed that yesterday. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the scheme referred to in the memorandum has already been established in terms of Proclamation No. R.172 of 1968, published in Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 2112 of 28th June, 1968. As a result of this scheme which has been instituted, there now is a joint scheme for marketing karakul pelts between South-West Africa and the Republic. In other words, the scheme envisaged in the memorandum as far as karakul pelts are concerned has already been put into operation.

Mr. Speaker, lately South-West Africa has been growing. The Territory has made tremendous progress. Whether or not the Odendaal plan was the injection, nobody will deny that lately, since the publication of the Odendaal plan, South-West Africa has been growing as far as its economy is concerned as never before. Before there used to be uncertainty about South-West Africa. This was not only so during the war but there also were times after the war when there was uncertainty about South-West Africa, but this international uncertainty has disappeared to a large extent, and as regards certainty in South-West Africa it is obvious that the closer South-West Africa is linked to the Republic the greater will be the certainty which exists in South-West Africa.

Sir, the hon. member said that if things were to be done for the people in South-West Africa, one would get complaints here in the Republic. If perhaps larger subsidies were to be given to South-West Africa, the people here would be dissatisfied. This may be so. For a long time we have been hearing people say, “Yes, in South-West Africa the people are paying much less income tax than we do here.” but the contrary is also true. The closer South-West Africa is linked to the Republic, the more South-West Africa will share in the successes of the Republic. In other words, closer links with the Republic will have the effect that when there is economic growth and progress in the Republic of South Africa, South-West Africa will also share in that growth and progress. In other words, in this way one is providing a greater degree of security, economic and otherwise, to the inhabitants of South-West Africa. South-West Africa already has representation here in the Parliament of the Republic. In view of the fact that the hon. member spoke of uniformity, I should like to point out to him that we do not have uniformity in the Republic today as regards our representation in this House. It is true that at present South-West Africa’s representatives represent fewer people than other hon. members do, but you have heard here, Mr. Speaker, that one of the hon. members who represents South-West Africa in this House, represents a constituency extending over 51,000 square miles. On this basis, on the basis of the size of constituencies, we have no uniformity in this Parliament. The hon. member complained about uniformity and said that uniformity would have the effect that we would have to apply the same provisions relating to constituencies in South-West Africa as well. Sir, the hon. member is seeing ghosts where there are no ghosts to be seen. What I can say is this. It is easy for hon. members opposite to talk, and especially about clause 20, because they are merely talking as theorists. The only thing they need do is to talk in theories. They can talk about the letter of the law and about a democratic system, but if these things have to be implemented, it is this side of the House that has to do so. It is on this account that we realize what our responsibilities are, and we realize that in practice as far as this readjustment is concerned, it is necessary for us to take such powers as we are now seeking under clause 20. We realize that for the interim, for the period from the prorogation of Parliament to the commencement of its next ensuing session, this is something essential. We accept that in future legislation will be passed here which will also be applicable to South-West Africa. For example, if we were to amend the agricultural laws, and if such amendments were to apply to South-West Africa as well, we would say so. This is what we expect the position to be in future, and in the meantime it is necessary to have certain powers so as to implement this measure in practice, and consequently it is necessary for us to take these powers under clause 20. I admitted frankly to the hon. member that I did not like this way of legislating, and when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me for what length of time we were going to proceed in this way. I told him that I did not like this way of legislating but that practical circumstances compelled us to do so; and then the idea occurred to me to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition, as I have done, by making this measure applicable only up to 30th June, 1971. We hope that by that time we shall have made all the readjustments to be made and shall have eliminated all practical problems which might arise. But this does not mean that under this clause 20 we shall want to pass far-reaching legislation affecting South-West Africa, as was envisaged by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He knows that this is indeed not so; surely he knows the sole purpose of this is to put the change-over to the new arrangement into operation.

The hon. member for Durban (North) again referred to clause 38. What the position used to be does not really matter. This National Government, and not they, gave this Parliament the powers we now have. Now they are taking a great deal of pride in the fact that South-West Africa used to be governed by proclamation, whereas legislation will henceforth have to be passed for South-West Africa. Bit it was not the United Party that brought this about; we did, and now practical circumstances force us to do something else. But where I disagree with the hon. member for Durban (North) is in the following respect. We do not intend doing anything under clause 20 which is in conflict with the wishes of Parliament. In so far as we may possibly make Acts of this Parliament, Acts of the Republic, applicable to South-West Africa, with amendments, that is not in conflict with the wishes of this Parliament. I am prepared to argue the following point with him at any time; when an Act was passed in this Parliament at any time in the past, and when this Parliament made that Act applicable to the Republic of South Africa, the question that it should not be made applicable to South-West Africa was never before this Parliament.

But the Minister had made up his mind about that before the legislation was introduced.

No, the hon. member does not understand what we are talking about. The hon. member for Durban (North) said that if we were going to amend those Acts we would be acting in conflict with the wishes of Parliament. I deny this; Parliament in passing an Act, which might subsequently be amended, never considered the question and provided expressly that that Act might not be made applicable to South-West Africa.

We have always looked to see whether or not it was applicable to South-West Africa.

Yes, where we wanted to make an Act applicable, where we felt that it was essential to do so, we mentioned that specifically. But where that was not the intention, and where provision already existed in South-West Africa, we did not do so and we did not give any attention to the matter; we did not even consider it with the result that if we were to make it applicable to South-West Africa now, we would not be acting in conflict with the wishes of this Parliament. One may possibly advance an argument of this nature with regard to subsection (1) (b) relating to the Ordinances of South-West Africa. I see that time is running out. I just want to say that the National Government is passing this legislation because it wants to make progress; it believes in progress in all fields and where we are drawing South-West Africa closer to the Republic and integrating it with the Republic, we are doing so in the belief that it will greatly benefit us as well as South-West Africa in future.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—96:Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—33: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher. E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell. D. F.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell. Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, during the Second Reading debate, I put certain questions to the hon. the Minister in regard to the question of compensation and liability for injury or damage in terms of this clause. The hon. the Minister undertook to look into the question I raised. I should like to refer him to section 4 of the original Act, which is the section which has caused me some difficulty. Section 4 (1) of the Civil Defence Act of 1966 states:

1. 4 (1) The State or the Minister or any person in the service of the State shall not be liable for any loss or damage as a result of bodily injury, loss of life or loss of or damage to property, which is caused by or arises out of or in connection with—
   1. (a) any direction; or
   2. (b) any action by the Minister under section 7 with reference to any direction,
2. issued under section 3 (1).

There are three groups of people involved. In the first place there are the members of the South African Defence Force who will be involved in carrying out this Act and in the second place there are public servants. Both of these groups are covered. In the third place there will be civilians who are instructed to carry out tasks in the performance of duties assigned to them in terms of this Act. It is necessary that those three groups be covered against any danger.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right as regards public servants, who include those officials attached to civil defence. They are covered by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act should they be injured. Provision has therefore been made for that. As regards ordinary civilians we also have certain powers in terms of section 18 of the Civil Defence Act. If the hon. member looks at section 18 he will see that we may make regulations. Our intention is in terms of these provisions to make necessary regulations, which will then provide for that.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister please to tell the Committee whether he has looked into the question of the wording of this clause in so far as it omits the reference to the consultation provided for in section 3 (2) of the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I have given attention to this matter as well. The provision for consultation has not been omitted. Clause 3A (3) provides for it and reads as follows—

The underlined part of this clause corresponds to the proviso in section 2 (2) (c) of the Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a new question in regard to this clause which I did not raise during the Second Reading debate. This clause provides for the Minister to “appoint such committees as he may deem fit”, committees which in the past would have reported to the director, but which will now advise the Minister himself. The hon. the Minister will remember that when the original Act was passed we raised the question of an advisory committee which would include commerce and industry, and particularly industry which is concerned to a large extent with manufacturing and manpower. This committee could then advise the Minister as an emergency planning committee. At that time the hon. the Minister did not feel that it was necessary. Now, however, by this amendment he himself will be the person to be advised by such committee and not the director. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that organized industry and commerce could play a part in advising him, particularly in regard to available facilities and manpower problems.

To save having to rise again when clause 8 is put I should like to refer to that clause now as I feel it is relevant to what I have just said. Clause 8 deals with exemption from service. The committee I mentioned earlier could also be of such a nature as to be able to advise him on which industries cannot spare employees to be called up for training and which people should be exempted, etc. The points I have raised, therefore, refer to both a broad advisory planning committee and an exemption committee. I should also like to know whether he has any intention of appointing such committees in terms of the powers given him by this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I have no intention to do so, but if it should become necessary I would not hesitate to take steps in this regard. I just want to point out to the hon. member that we do have a Manpower Board.

But that is for defence, and not for civil defence.

But civil defence is now becoming part of the Department of Defence. I think that we now have the necessary powers under that umbrella, that if I find it necessary after this division has been properly made, I shall not hesitate to do so.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we propose to vote against this clause on a matter of principle. We opposed the Second Reading of this Bill which is consequential upon the South-West Africa Affairs Bill, and this Bill follows that principle. In this clause it is sought to abolish the Land Bank in South-West Africa. For these reasons as well as those given during the Second Reading debate we oppose this clause.

Clause 2 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—93: Bodenstein. P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—34: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield. G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the field of public health considerable attention has been given in the past to some important problems, and research in regard to these has been undertaken by special organizations established for the purpose with the support of the Government, other organizations such as the mines and also the public. Here I refer especially to the South African Institute for Medical Research, the Polio Research Institute and the Pneumoconiosis Research Institute. These organizations have done very good work and are still doing so, especially in manufacturing various important vaccines.

Nevertheless the entire field of public health, with its manifold problems in our subtropical climate and with our various population groups, has not yet received the necessary attention as regards both width and especially depth of research.

One of the functions of the C.S.I.R. is to encourage, by means of funds provided by the State, research at our universities. In this way particularly good progress has been made during the past number of years, also in the field of medical research. Lecturers who are keen to undertake research make a submission to the C.S.I.R. on some particular problem or project they want to work on and approved projects are then supported. Furthermore, larger research units have been built up under suitable leaders on a more permanent basis, and at present there are more than 20 such units. I mention, for example, units dealing with amoebiasis, heart and lung conditions, endoctrine metabolism, human bio-chemistry, and photo-biology. These units are mainly carrying out fundamental research as one would expect from academics, and as is also necessary to the training of research workers who have to become acquainted with the basic problems in their particular field of study.

As a result of this support given to medical research not only important scientific results have been achieved, but also a fair number of young medical men have been trained as research workers, as recently became known in one particular case as a result of the organ transplants, which caused a good deal of sensation. So we now have the expert who can undertake further medical research, and the need for such research into problems of public health cannot be doubted. I make bold to say that the research workers at our disposal can undoubtedly be compared with the best in the world.

Taking into account the fact that our population is growing rapidly, that our health problems are becoming more and more pressing as a result, and that we must also render assistance to our neighbouring states, and perhaps to others as well, I should just like to mention a few problems, by way of example, which definitely and urgently require further research.

Among the infectious diseases there are the important respiratory and intestinal infections which cause serious diseases, especially in the case of children and old people; tuberculosis and leprosy, on which a good deal more research has to be done, especially in connection with vaccination and other preventative measures; a whole series of virus diseases which are transmitted by insects and ticks, and which play a large part in Africa in particular; various internal parasites, particularly bilharzia, which is, after the fairly successful combating of malaria, the main African parasite living on a human host. A difficult problem in combating the infectious diseases is that the germs and parasites build up a resistance to the remedy which is used. Approximately 10 per cent of cases of tuberculosis that have never been treated, at present resist treatment. This is also the case in other parts of the world. There is, inter alia, the example of Vietnam, where the Americans also encountered resistance in malaria cases. These are indications of future dangers which we cannot ignore.

In addition I shall just mention vascular diseases such as coronary thrombosis and brain thrombosis or stroke; high blood pressure; cancer of the liver and pellagra, which occurs especially among the Bantu. In many of these diseases nutrition, heredity and environmental factors play an important role, and it is our duty to investigate these factors under the particular circumstances existing in our own part of the world. The Health Department itself could pay little attention to research in the past, because it had to concentrate more on other aspects of the promotion of public health. Although there are certain Government Departments that have done fruitful research, and are still doing so, we are aware that the Public Service, with its own distinctive organization and regulations, is not always the best organization for this kind of activity. My hon. colleague the Minister of National Education recently said, when he proposed the establishment of a new Council for Human Sciences as a semi-government body to do research in that field, that experience had shown the Public Service did not offer the most suitable background for research.

As hon. members know, the C.S.I.R. is orientated mainly in the direction of the physical, chemical and engineering sciences. This is a wide field in which important work is being done, mainly for the promotion of our industries. The biological and especially the medical sciences are a little removed from the field of the C.S.I.R. Moreover, the board members of the C.S.I.R. are mainly experts in the physical and engineering fields.

The most important function of the C.S.I.R. in the medical field is that at present it is responsible for the administration, control and allocation of Government funds for medical research. In order to fulfil these obligations the C.S.I.R. established a special Committee for Research in the Medical Sciences, which consists mainly of medical men, and which in its turn has established several expert subcommittees.

So a basic organization of experts and administrative officers already exists, which can easily be lifted out and continue under another dispensation. If we take into account all these considerations, and also the status of the medical profession and its service to society, you will agree with me, Sir, that the time has now come to establish a separate medical research council, as is proposed in the Bill.

I can assure you that all that are concerned in this, the C.S.I.R., the medical research workers and the entire profession, support this proposal after mature consideration.

The Bill is self-explanatory and I do not want to go into details. Clause 3 defines the objects of the council, clauses 4 and 5 deal with its functions and powers, and clause 6 with its constitution. On studying these clauses hon. members will see that the intention is that the new council shall continue to support medical and related research at universities, as the C.S.I.R. has done until now and is still doing. But in addition the council will have to consider the entire field of public health, in order to determine which problems require attention and research.

The members of the council will be appointed on account of their special knowledge of public health requirements or on account of having distinguished themselves in specific branches of the medical and related sciences, and will therefore be well equipped to promote research on a co-ordinated basis or to conduct such research themselves in laboratories in so far as it is deemed necessary to build such laboratories, and in so far as funds are available.

Several divisions of the C.S.I.R., particularly the National Chemical and the National Physical Research Institutes, have rendered important assistance to medical research workers in the past, and it is essential that this should continue. The National Water Research Institute will undoubtedly also be able to make an important contribution. The Nutrition Research Institute is directly connected with medical research, and will quite possibly be taken over by the new council. I am just holding this in prospect. No decision has been taken in this regard. This is for the future to decide. All these institutes are situated in Scientia, the central site of the C.S.I.R. in Pretoria. Moreover, several other facilities of the C.S.I.R. will be of great importance to the Medical Research Council, such as the library, which will become the central scientific library of the Republic, the workshop where special scientific apparatus is manufactured, and other facilities.

After all, it is a well-known fact that although natural science is divided into a number of disciplines, such as chemistry, physics, biology, etc., with their subdivisions, for example, geology, meteorology, and the various branches of engineering, the growth of our knowledge is more and more breaking down the boundaries between such divisions and weaving the one into the other. In fact, medical science is a mixture of all the sciences, including the human sciences.

The research methods and techniques developed by one particular branch of science, are more and more applied in all the others. So it is said that the biologists are gradually becoming chemists, the chemists are becoming physicists, the physicists are becoming mathematicians, the mathematicians are becoming philosophers, and jokingly it is said that the philosophers are becoming lunatics. Fortunately we are still far from the last stage, but it is clear that the highest degree of co-operation of a variety of scientists is necessary to-day to achieve the best results in research. Therefore it is very desirable to develop Scientia into a large science centre of the Republic, even larger than it is at present. To eliminate unnecessary duplication of facilities and to promote co-operation it therefore goes without saying that the new council should also be housed at Scientia, and therefore clauses 13 and 15 provide for the transfer of both the staff and the movable and immovable property of the C.S.I.R. until now used by that council in connection with medical research.

This does not mean, however, that everything is to be concentrated, to the detriment of the universities and other institutions. This last sentence I want to stress very specifically. It merely means that there will be a complex of highly specialized laboratories which can carry out research of the best quality and which can serve as a source of knowledge and assistance to all the other organizations in the country. It is in fact an accepted principle in all developed countries, and most certainly in our country in regard to this matter, that further extensions or additional laboratories, if at all possible, should be placed at universities, just as the hydro-logical coastal laboratories of the C.S.I.R. are now being moved to Stellenbosch. The Medical Research Council will also consider the placing of laboratories on this principle. In other words, our universities, and especially our medical schools, must remain in the picture fully and not be shut out at all, but be brought in more as a result of this legislation. The funds appropriated for the present financial year for expenditure by the C.S.I.R. on medical research will in terms of clause 16 be transferred to the council, and subsequently funds will be appropriated separately for the council in accordance with its needs.

Clauses 18, 19 and 20 deal with discoveries, inventions and improvements that may be made in the course of research, and correspond in all particulars with similar provisions in the C.S.I.R. Act (Act No. 32 of 1962). Just as in the C.S.I.R. Act and the Human Sciences Research Act, provision is also being made here in clause 22 for the receipt of donations, bequests and contributions by private persons, companies and anyone who is eager to grant financial support to medical research in general or in any specific direction.

Mr. Speaker, I have briefly outlined the objects of the legislation to you. As hon. members will recall, this Bill was introduced last year already, but had to stand over until this year owing to lack of time. Before I move the Second Reading I should like to add the following. As far as medical science is concerned, the introduction of this Bill makes this a really great day for this particular branch of science. We have made a great deal of progress, and to me personally this is the realization of an ideal I have cherished for many years. It is with deep gratitude that I can say here to-day that this matter has the support of all bodies and persons that are concerned with it and know something about it. I am also aware that it has the support of both sides of the House and therefore I want to express my appreciation in advance. I presume there will be a discussion in the Committee Stage and I shall welcome it, but we all agree on the principle. In now moving the Second Reading, I repeat that this is truly a great day for medical science and the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is correct when he states that he is supported in regard to this Bill by the whole of the medical profession and certainly by both sides of this House. This, however, does not mean that there are not some portions of the Bill to which we can raise objection and some which we feel he should reconsider. We definitely feel that it is something the country needs and we support it wholeheartedly. I think that, on this occasion, we should also recognize the great duty which the C.S.I.R. has carried out under great difficulties during the last few years. We are entering a new era here in which the medical profession itself will be the guiding hand of this council. After thanking the C.S.I.R. I would like to say that I think the hon. the Minister should give more thought to how he is going to select the members of the council than is shown in the Bill before us. Firstly, I want the hon. the Minister to give thought to whether all the members should be registered medical practitioners. This is not generally considered a good thing, namely to make a council consist entirely of members of a single profession although that profession is divided into a large number of sections. Nevertheless, medical men like other professional men, tend to fit into grooves and it is good to have an outside thinker. In at least one overseas medical research council the chairman is not a medical man. He is in most cases an ex-judge, a distinguished lawyer or accountant or a distinguished politician. He is usually a man quite divorced from the medical profession itself. He is largely one who can weigh evidence and who can appreciate which evidence should be accepted. I feel this is something which requires consideration. We have the two allied professions to medicine with which co-operation must be strongly supported, namely the veterinary profession and the pharmacological profession. The veterinary profession will, of course, be associated with this council, but it must be very closely associated with it in this country because more and more as time passes do we realize that the diseases which are common to man and animal are increasing. We realize more and more that insect-borne diseases particularly are increasing. The same insects which bite horses bite us. Environmental diseases can be carried by horses. Viruses particularly can be carried by insects and the same insects infect and are carried by animals. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the zoologists should be closely associated with this council. In fact, I could go on and refer to many professions which are associated so closely with medicine that they should be represented on this council. The remedy, of course, is for the council to form committees and to incorporate in these committees the necessary scientists. Provision should be made for this and indeed the Bill does make provision for it but funds should also be made available for this purpose.

I feel that when we come to the committee stage we should discuss very freely and liberally the position of the executive officers and their positions as president, vice-president and secretary. When we come to the committee stage we will put to the Minister certain suggestions which I am sure he will consider. I want him also to consider the question as to whether when a councillor’s time has expired he should be eligible for immediate re-election; whether a cooling-off phase in a council of this nature is not a good thing. I say that the councillor should not be ineligible for re-election but that he should be ineligible for immediate re-election. I have served on committees in which you find that a certain individual takes what he regards as a reasonable stand but what others regard as an unreasonable stand. He has a personal feeling towards some individual and continually blocks his advancement. This happens amongst the greatest of men, and a cooling-off phase at the end of a period of service is not a bad thing and certainly not a bad thing in a council of this kind which carries very heavy responsibilities with regard to the health of this country.

I think we should also consider giving authority to this council to set up laboratories in other countries. I feel that it will pay us to support countries to the north of us in the two coastal corridors, particularly the eastern corridor, down which most of our serious infectious diseases come. This area, northern Zululand, has not been adequately studied although it is at the present moment being studied to a certain extent. I have mentioned this area over the past few years, and I think it is becoming more and more urgent, with the possibility of military action in that area, that this council should study the area and, if necessary, set up laboratories in the associated neighbouring territories.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has not mentioned and the Bill does not mention the importance of a Defence laboratory. It is almost certain that a country like this, if it does not prepare itself and prepare itself thoroughly, will be faced with chemical and biological warfare on a large scale. It has not been practised to a large extent in past wars, but that is due to the fact that the recent wars have been between great powers, and all these great powers had first-class scientists and well-equipped laboratories to study the dangers which they faced. We know, for instance, that the Germans before the last war tested out the underground system in Paris to see if they could find a way of distributing germs through the population in this way. This country has no real defence against warfare of this kind at the present time, and the only way in which it can build up a defence is by setting up laboratories and by training scientists to study this subject. They will be working largely in the dark. Those countries which have these laboratories will not share their knowledge. It is a knowledge which is peculiar to the particular country which is likely to be attacked. There is not the slightest possibility that these countries will r»hare their knowledge with you. They will rather teach you to make an atom bomb than let you know what their defence laboratories are working on. This is something which we must make particularly our own.

Then, Sir, I want to draw attention to what I regard as a most urgent problem and that is the manufacture of the Hong Kong flu vaccine. For over six months we have been told in the newspapers and elsewhere that the Hong Kong flu will reach us some time during the coming winter and that there will be a shortage of vaccine: that is the crux of the matter. According to the statements one reads, there will be a grave shortage of vaccine to immunize the population, so much so that they are talking about immunizing only selected people. Sir, this country has no excuse if we are short of vaccine. The Department of Health can have no excuse. They faced a problem like this about four or five years ago with vaccine for rabies. The country was caught shockingly short of rabies vaccine. The veterinary department which manufactures the rabies vaccine, could produce only a very small quantity every month, and it was held up because machinery which should have arrived did not arrive for months. They asked the polio laboratories to support them and the polio laboratories, of course, did, but their output is very small. Sir, if after we have had nine months’ warning, or probably more, that the Hong Kong flu is on Its way, we cannot produce sufficient vaccine, it would be a disgrace and a scandal. I hope therefore that when the hon. the Minister brings his council into being, or perhaps even before, he will take up the problem, because if we are caught without sufficient vaccine it will be absolutely inexcusable. It may be too late even now, but there is not the slightest excuse. Sir, I wish to say that I am very pleased indeed that this Bill has come before this House.

As the hon. member for Durban (Central) has just said, and as the hon. the Minister also said here, it is with a feeling of deep gratitude that we welcome this proposed legislation here today. South Africa has already made its mark in this field. Just think of what doctors in South Africa have already achieved in the field of poliomyelitis in the field of the eradication of malaria, and quite recently, heart surgery. It is truly a very encouraging and very impressive achievement. It is therefore with intense gratitude that we welcome this Bill. We welcome it because co-ordination between the various Departments, the various universities and all the various bodies in the country which undertake research is now being effected here. In reply to a question put to the Minister last year in regard to the research which was being carried out, he replied that research was being carried out by 16 Government Departments, four Provincial administrations, South-West Africa, all the universities in the country, semi-State institutions and private organizations. According to a random test carried out by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research the State and provincial departments appropriate an amount of R17 million for research; R9.5 million was appropriated for the C.S.I.R. and the Atomic Energy Board; R3.2 million for the universities and other private bodies. A total amount of approximately R40 million is being spent annually on research. I want to concede that this is not for the purpose of medical research only.

Mr. Speaker, since South Africa is playing such an important role in the field of medical science, one is grateful to know that this Council is now being introduced with a view to co-ordination and the promotion of research. It is a great day for South Africa. It is a great day because we are in this way showing the world that we here at the southernmost point of Africa are a very highly civilized nation; that we are prepared to contribute our share in this field; that we are also prepared to undertake research and to assist in maintaining the health of those entrusted to our care and over whom we as Whites are guardians. We are grateful therefore that this Bill will now make it possible to effect the necessary co-ordination. It should be an indication to the world that we here at the southernmost point of Africa is a highly civilized nation which intends to hold its own in future as far as this matter is concerned.

Sir, I am grateful for the broad purview of the Bill and for the objectives of the Council, as set out in clause 3. This Council will now be able to undertake virtually all types of research and investigations, and will also be able to co-operate with overseas bodies in order to foster medical science as a whole. In particular I am also grateful that the hon. the Minister has intimated very clearly that the establishment of this Council, the expansion of Scientia in Pretoria, does not mean that he wants to place a curb on universities which have up to now done very valuable research, but that the idea is that even at medical faculties, where research of a high calibre was carried out in the past and is being carried out to-day, laboratories of this Council will be established and that the Council will lend support there which is so essential. Mr. Speaker, you will allow me, once again, to break a lance here for the Free State. We in the Free State do not have a medical faculty yet, and I trust that the Minister will, through this Council, be of assistance to us as well.

I am also grateful that my colleague on the opposite side mentioned the close co-operation which should exist between the medical science and the related science, the veterinary science, because we have, in the shape of Onderstepoort, already established such a world famous institution. I cannot agree with him in full about the constitution of the Council, where he proposed that a member should not be immediately available for re-election or for reappointment. I believe that if a man is doing good work, keep him on. In fact, I think that what the hon. member is asking, i.e. that not all the people who are members of this Council should be doctors, is already stated precisely in this way in the clause; after all, it is clearly stated there that these people who are Council. I think the constitution of the Council shall only have distinguished themselves in any branch of the medical or a related science—they can then be appointed as members of the Council. I think the constitution of the Council is a fortunate one. I would have been glad to know what the actual estimates of this Council will be. I mean how much money will be appropriated for this Council. I want to acknowledge without reservation that the value of research undertaken is not always directly related to the amount of money which is spent on it, but it is nevertheless important that the necessary funds should be available. I also hope that the scientists who will serve on this Council will also be given the necessary financial encouragement in order to establish them on this Council and to retain their services for many years. It is calculated that in the Western world, approximately R450 million per year is being spent by firms manufacturing drugs on research alone; that is private. Now there are a great many overseas firms which are earning a great deal of money in South Africa by means of the preparations they sell here. I want to concede that these people are also rendering a great service to South Africa. A large number of them have in fact proceeded to establish laboratories and factories for the manufacture of these drugs, in the country. But I nevertheless want to express the hope and make an appeal to these people to be unstinting, particularly since they have a great deal of capital at their disposal, with donations to this Council.

It is with great satisfaction, as the hon. the Minister said, and in fact with pride, that the South African medical profession gratefully receives this legislation.

Before making any comments on the Bill itself, may I please take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to those bodies which have been doing such yeoman service in the past in the fields of research in South Africa, and particularly may I mention again the names of the S.A. Institute for Medical Research, those who did polio research, the pneumoconiosis research bodies and the research bodies in our universities. All of which are now world famous. I feel that this Bill, as it is now contemplated, will, if judiciously handled, stimulate the work of these present bodies. Having said that, let me get back for a moment or two to what the Bill contains. Let me say at the outset and without wishing to cause any upset in the Department’s work on the Bill, that I feel some of the provisions, for instance clauses 3, 4 and 5, are too verbose, that there is a fair amount of repetition in these paragraphs and they are untidy.

Order! Should not that be dealt with in the Committee Stage?

I am not going into any detail at all, Sir. My purpose in pointing it out now is that the Minister may find it advisable on re-reading the Bill to ask the Department to amend the verbosity of the Bill, and bring in amendments that will hasten the passage of the Bill. We do not want to come here and argue across the floor about such amendments. There are many things here which could be altered. I think that on having a second look at this Bill, we may find that we can save a lot of time, and a lot of the clumsiness of presentation may be eliminated.

What do I see in the future as the result of this Bill, and what hints can I give as to how this body should be directed? I feel that the Council that is going to be formed should be particularly an administrative council. They will sit in Pretoria and direct the decentralization, but will not necessarily direct those bodies which will become decentralized. They will see that the flow of money goes to these work points, to these research points. They must see that there is no overlapping, but there should be encouragement for co-ordination. It does not mean to say that one university particularly should be given the job of studying immunology, for instance. If another university or a particular hospital wants to undertake that work, there is no reason why the two groups should not work in harmony with one another. Where we speak of overlapping, we should rather speak of careful direction, but not stopping one or more bodies doing work in the same direction. In the Bill provision is made for grants and bursaries for our South African research workers to go to other lands. I would like to see emanating from this council a directive which would encourage research workers from other lands to come to us. A beginning has been made in that direction with the work that was and is being done by Professor Barnard. He has encouraged research workers from other countries to come and see what is happening here. I do not know how much can be learned from a short visit to a country, but I would like to see encouragement given to those people who go from our country to other countries, or who come here from other countries for prolonged stays so that a real grip of what is being done can be afforded to these people.

Then there are other matters to which I think we should direct our attention. I would like to see, for instance, a new attitude to the physics and mathematics of medicine. I would like to see more progress being made in space medicine. We here are on the fringes of it, but much has been learned recently in America and in Russia by the astronauts. These are branches of medicine in which we in South Africa at the moment are not leaders, but we must take every opportunity to train our people to make sure that we can take our place in the world of aviation and outerspace.

I would also like to see more work being done in marine biology, which is allied closely to medicine. The hon. member for Durban (Central) has mentioned the importance of biology and zoology and with that marine biology must surely go hand in hand. But it is not for me really to suggest to a central body which will be established what they should do. However, these are directions in which I would like to see them work, and naturally if that is going to take place it will cost an awful lot of money. Here the financial relationships between the central body, the Government, and the universities must be carefully investigated. I would not like to see any endowments made to universities being controlled by the central body. They must remain part and parcel of the universities to which the donations have been made. Now, there may be a tendency later to say: You people at this university are doing research eyes. A benefactor may come along and want that same type of investigation to be done at a hospital to which he is attached for some reason. What is going to happen there if you get two large donations to do the same type of work? It is going to be difficult. If a man wants to give a donation to a particular body, he must be allowed to do it, and you may find a clash of interest between one university and another. But there I say that co-ordination of the work should take place and it should not be excluded from one university or research body because it is already being done by another.

There is another very important matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister in the direction of work that ought to be done, and where I think too little is being done to-day, namely industrial medicine. I think here particularly more stimulus should be given by industrialists themselves. I should like them to initiate immediately a fund which they will allow to be controlled by the central council, by the S.A. Medical Research Council, to be used for industrial medicine.

The Chamber of Mines does its best in the way of pneumoconiosis research. It has encouraged the C.S.I.R. to establish a research body to study pneumoconiosis. If the Chamber of Mines can do that, then there is no reason why industrialists should not do something towards making sure that industrial medicine, in this country, is properly looked after. I think of rehabilitation, the protection of the worker and the ways and means for the prevention of accidents. As I have said before, I would like to see the industrialist come forward and not let the Government pay for these things entirely. Virtually, it is for us all, but the industrialist is the one that should be held responsible to look after his artisans. The hon. member for Durban (Central) made a point about the appointment of personnel to this board. I agree with him to a certain extent—that it is not necessary that everyone serving on this board should be a medical man. I am not even sure that the chairman himself should be a medical man. This must be a directing body; people who are trained to observe and direct. They should be big businessmen, big industrialists together with scientists. But it would be a pity to take our best scientists who might not be directors or businessmen, and handicap them by making them full-time members, or even part-time members of this board, while they are busy working on some important aspect of research. We must bear these things in mind. I know that when the time comes for the appointment of such people, it may be asked, “Why was Mr. X not put on this council? He is one of the best scientists in the country.” That may be well but I would like to see him being retained and recognized as a top scientist in the country. I would hate to have him taken away from important work and be given a job on this council. The hon. the Minister must please think about these things and realize that the suggestions that are coming from this side of the House are meant to help build a council consisting of the best type of person for that job. I again say that when the time comes for the appointment of people, it will be difficult for the hon. the Minister to do so. A hint was given by the member who spoke before me and I want to emphasize it. He said that discussions must take place at the highest level, for instance with universities, the C.S.I.R., the Pneumoconiosis Board and with the industrialists in order to see who the best people will be. It is in the hands of the Minister, to do this. This is no place to think about political appointments, or of friends of this one, or friends of that one. This will have to be top notch all the way.

With those few words I want to join my colleagues on both sides of the House in wishing this measure well, and I trust that when the Committee Stage is reached we will find an easy passage for the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a single speaker, either on this or on that side of the House, who does not want to avail himself of this opportunity of expressing his thanks to the hon. the Minister for having submitted this measure to us at such an early stage. I do not want to criticize the hon. member for Rosettenville or the hon. member for Durban (Central) in view of the spirit of this Bill, but I do nevertheless think that they are little too concerned about who the people who serve on the Council will be. The principal aim of this Bill is not to protect the interests of certain groups, but is in the first place, as is contained in clause 3. to be of assistance in fostering public health in the Republic. I am sorry that hon. members place so much emphasis upon who the members of the Council should be, because I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will appoint those people who, as prescribed in clause 3 (a), will assist in promoting public health, people with an insight into that. Neither do I think that it was altogether fitting that the hon. member for Rosettenville should at this stage of the debate have commented on untidiness and on the wording and paragraphing of this Bill. However, I am grateful to him for having nevertheless stated certain problems to which this House will subsequently have to give its attention. In regard to industrial medicine, I agree wholeheartedly with him, because it is a real problem, and to industrialists this problem is becoming graver by the day. It may subsequently happen, perhaps not within a year or two, that we will definitely have to undertake research into space conditions. As far as I am concerned, the principal matter is that we should develop further the framework which this Bill affords us. The Bill also makes provision to the effect that the Council will have to give attention to problems affecting the health of the individual and the community. In the second place, provision is also being made in the Bill for the training of research workers, because it will be of no avail if one knows what the problem is but does not investigate its causes. That is why it is fitting that this Bill should make provision for the training of research workers, irrespective of what aspect is being dealt with. This provision is being made by means of study loans, by means of grants to certain institutions, colleges or universities, and also by means of the purchase of material, because that was one of our greatest problems in the past. Our country is fortunate in this respect that we have at our disposal people with the potential to undertake research at the highest level. However, the problem has always been that we did not have at our disposal the necessary material, the instruments, the machinery, chemical or whatever, and the facilities in order to undertake that research. The result was that our people have had to rely on facilities offered by other countries. In fact, that was also one of the reasons for our brain drain, as the hon. members on the opposite side put it. Because the facilities of other countries appeared so attractive, our people went to study and undertake research there. In this way they became estranged from their own country. As far as research is concerned, our country is also particularly privileged in that we have a heterogeneous population and that we have conditions here which do not occur in any other part of the world. We, as the white nation, have that privilege, the intellect, the drive and the ability to investigate those problems. In the field of cancer of the liver for example, particularly among the Bantu, we have the best authorities in this field of research in South Africa because we have the material available. In this way there are other conditions as well. Unfortunately South Africa is a country where the death rate from coronary arteriostenosis among our Whites is very high. Possibly there is a connection between this and the food we eat in this country, and there may be a connection between this and our plentiful sunshine. There are also many other possible related factors upon which light can be thrown. That is why it is also a good thing that we have to find the means here in our own country for undertaking the necessary research work. We have this advantage that the conditions which we find among the Whites and do not find among the Bantu, can be compared, and by this means we may possibly arrive at the truth.

Another important aspect of this measure is the following. When a research project is completed and certain findings have been made, all this trouble has been to no avail unless the new knowledge is applied in order to see whether it does in fact have results. It is of no use if a person knows how to transplant a heart if he does not have a heart to transplant in order to see what the results of the research will be. The Bill also provides that by sharing and disseminating knowledge and information by means of the Department of National Education, schools, colleges and universities, the knowledge of the research worker will be transfered to the public. It will be seen to that this is carried out.

There is a last idea in respect of something for which this legislation also makes provision. We are privileged here that we form part of Africa, and we can justifiably regard ourselves as the most highly developed country in Africa. It is our duty to see whether we cannot do something for other parts of the continent. The knowledge which our research workers acquire can be conveyed to other countries where it can be of use. We have been doing this for years, not so much in the field of medicine, but our country has a good name in the field of the veterinary science, inter alia, as a result of something which happened 50 years ago, i.e. the discovery of a serum against horse sickness. We were of great assistance to Egypt against the evils of horse sickness. We have already done this and we must continue to convey the knowledge of our research workers to countries who are willing to receive it. It is indeed a privilege to be able to do this.

This is our framework, and from here we are going ahead. I should like to see the hon. member for Rosettenville feel himself quite at liberty, in a year or two, to raise other questions of importance which can be solved by this Council, so that it can be of benefit to the country.

Mr. Speaker, as a layman entering this debate, I want to follow on what has been referred to by the hon. member for Brentwood who has just resumed his seat, and that is the question of conveying knowledge which has been acquired through the council and research work undertaken under the auspices of the council, to the public both here and abroad. Speaking as a layman, I believe it is of primary importance that public interest should be established in the council and its work, and that public interest should be supported and maintained. I believe this council can receive a large measure of support from the public outside the medical and technological sphere which might be directly concerned with the work.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the Bill gives the council enough power to publicize the activities and the achievements of its research workers. It is true that clause 3 charges the council with the duty of collating relevant information and making that information available. But that information is of a purely technical or professional nature. It is of interest to the professional and technical sections of the public but not to the ordinary man in the street. I believe general public interest should be developed in the activities of the research workers and I believe that that can best be developed by ensuring that the undertakings of the council’s research workers are permitted to receive and do in fact receive the maximum publicity.

If one looks back over the past 12 months, then one finds that the publicity and other benefits to the country flowing from the achievements of Professor Barnard and those associated with him, have been due to the fact that publicity has been given to those scientific achievements. I believe he focused public attention on a very wide field of human endeavour which is directed towards the promotion of health and the curing of disease. I do not believe this public interest would have been stimulated had there been a complete clamp-down on any technical or professional information being passed to the general public. I believe if one lets the public have the facts and the information then the public becomes associated with and participates in the pride in the achievements of our research workers in this country and, under this Bill, of the research workers in the medical field.

The Bill also provides for the acceptance by the council of funds and donations and also for sponsored foundations, and I believe that is most welcome and most desirable. This again emphasizes the point I wish to make, namely the likelihood of foundations for research being established will be increased if interest is stimulated by knowledge of what is going on and what is being done in the research field.

As I say, I speak as a layman, and I appreciate the professional reticence regarding publicity in the medical profession. The Minister and others of the same profession might regard me as something of a heretic because of what I am saying in this regard, but I do believe that what is going on, what is being achieved, the difficulties, the failures and the successes, of our research workers should be made available to the general public. It will provide a story which will stimulate pride and enthusiasm in every South African when they know what our research workers have been doing. I plead that there should be access to that information and to that knowledge.

I believe we have learned another lesson over the past few months in this country by not doing research work in secret and keeping the results thereof a secret, and that a greater interest has been shown by the youth of South Africa in the sciences and the following of scientific careers, and higher ambition has been created among many more of them than was the case before they had knowledge of the romantic thrill of this research work and the break-through in achievement of research workers.

I hope this council, whilst being charged with collating technical information and making it available here and abroad, will also be able to undertake and produce what I might call a report for the layman. I know it is difficult, it is not an annual or departmental report that can be issued because in any case it would be meaningless for most laymen, but I think a very good purpose would be served if the council were charged with seeing to it that there was a report of its activities setting out what was being done and mentioning its successes and failures. It should be presented in such a way that it was readable and understandable by the layman.

As far as the two other aspects of this Bill are concerned, I want to just mention again the points touched on by the hon. member for Rosettenville and a point which I hope the Minister will deal with in his reply, and that is the question of the concentration of specific undertakings in specific institutions. As the hon. member for Rosettenville said, decisions may be made that a certain type of medical research should only be done at a particular stipulated medical school. The Minister will be aware that considerable difficulties might arise because of the establishment of certain foundations attached to a particular university. One can understand that from a purely administrative and cost point of view concentration of research endeavour for specific purposes at a specific centre is perhaps desirable, but one can also see the difficulties involved in taking away from a university or a medical school those fields of research in regard to which endowments were made by some public institution.

Finally, Sir, I want to say a word or two about clause 17. So often the layman, and I am one of them, feels there is a possibility of animals being cruelly treated in the course of medical research. I feel this clause will do much to allay public fears in this regard, in other words, this council is charged with the proper control of animals which are kept in cases and required for research purposes. I know it will be a comfort to those organizations which are interested, like the S.P.C.A. and the Animal Welfare Society, to know that this will be a particular responsibility of this council. I believe this to be an advance and, as I say, it will allay the anxiety of animal lovers in so far as the use of animals in research work is concerned.

These are the matters which I wished to refer to, and I am sure this council and its work will create a considerable amount of public interest. Therefore I hope the Minister will ensure that the public can participate by knowing what is going on as the council progresses and as research progresses under the aegis of this council.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there was such a large measure of unanimity amongst hon. members of both sides of this House when they congratulated the hon. the Minister of Planning for having pleased the hon. the Minister of Health so much to-day with the introduction of this Bill. We are particularly grateful for this measure. Individuals and bodies have in the past undertaken research work on their own and achieved great things which benefited our country. As a small nation we have in the past accomplished particularly fine achievements in the field of science. We think of Arnold Theiler, of Professor Chris Barnard, we think of the successful research work undertaken in regard to pneumoconiosis, immunology, and also in the field of cancer research on which we are at present concentrating. We are glad that these universities and medical schools will be able to continue with their research work, and we are particularly grateful for the fact that there will now be a centralized medical research council here to continue the great design and which will also act in a coordinating capacity for the other research bodies. We want to direct a few words of thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Government for this Council. The medical and related professions welcome it with enthusiasm, and we are certain that the results of the research council will be to the benefit of the entire population of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of previous speakers in regard to this Bill in terms of which a South African Medical Research Council will be established. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the organizations and bodies concerned with research have indicated their acceptance of the principle in terms of which this new research council will be established. I believe that that is quite correct. But I believe, too, that there are individuals who have certain doubts about the wisdom of establishing this council. I feel that it is in the interests of this House that I at least put this point of view to the House and the hon. the Minister. I want to quote from the comments of a person well qualified to comment on this measure. This is a man who enjoys an international reputation in the field of research. I just want to indicate how he feels about this Bill and certain of its facets. He is of the opinion that although there may be a need for the council, it may become “yet another administrative superstructure”. I hope and believe that that will not be the case. He also feels that funds which may be better employed in the laboratory, field or ward level particularly in respect of research, will be diverted for the administration of this superstructure. Then he comments on a matter which has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Central). That hon. member referred to the question of veterinarians and veterinary science. It is an interesting thought that this gentleman puts forward in this regard. He says:

I also want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) in regard to pharmacological research. The object of the Bill, as set out in clause 3, appears to me to be very wide. In clause 3 (d) specific mention is made of research “in the field of the mathematical, physical, behavioural and biological sciences”. I should like to ask the Minister for some assurance in regard to research of a pharmacological nature. I believe that there is great scope for pharmacological research. I want to put a specific example to the Minister and I would appreciate it if he puts forward his views in this regard when he makes his reply. Let us consider the question of dagga. I believe that the time has come when pharmacological research must be carried out urgently in connection with dagga to establish its various properties, its effects on man and also to find some test which can be used to establish whether a person has taken dagga or not. I believe that in this country this is an urgent matter and I ask the hon. the Minister to assure me that although no specific reference is made to pharmacological research he nevertheless believes that this matter will be dealt with by the new research council.

I also wish to refer briefly to the composition of the council. This aspect of the council is dealt with mainly in clause 6 which indicates that “the council shall consist of a president, a vice-president and 12 other members appointed by the State President”.

Order! I think the hon. member should raise this matter during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, there is a suggestion I should like to put to the hon. the Minister in regard to the composition of the council.

I would suggest, as other speakers before me have made suggestions, that the State President in appointing members to this council should make use of the specialized knowledge and experience which exist among the various bodies which would obviously supply the members of this council. No specific mention is made in this Bill which will lay down the consultation will take place or that the State President himself could choose from a panel of names submitted by the various associations and bodies which would be interested in the composition of the council. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is something which I believe would involve these bodies in a specialized way. I think of the universities themselves; I think of the C.S.I.R.; I think of various scientific associations; I think of the Association of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, because specific provision is made in this Bill to award bursaries to people who will undergo their training at these colleges for advanced technical education. Therefore I suggest that the Minister should give consideration to this aspect in the appointing of the members of this council by the State President.

Then I want to refer to one further aspect and that deals with the principle which appears to have been dealt with under clause 23, under the regulations. I refer to subsection (1) (b) where the following is said:

We on this side of the House have, on previous occasions, suggested that there are advantages to be had in the appointment of alternative members to the council. This Bill itself makes no specific provision but there is a suggestion that the State President may make regulations which would make provision for the appointment of alternates. In previous debates there are many examples where we on this side of the House had pursued this particular question—I can remember in the case of the Medical Schemes Bill when the commission itself suggested that alternates should be provided for. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to that particular aspect, because I believe it is important and I believe that it should form some part of the Bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. members on both sides of the House, in effect I am deeply indebted to all of them for the many constructive and lucid contributions that have been made to this debate. After all, that is always the case when medical men speak, and I must say I am proud of my profession and of the lay members who spoke in this particular debate. Seeing that it is a late hour of the afternoon, I am quite sure hon. members will agree with me that most of the questions raised in this debate are questions to be discussed in committee. However, I would like to refer to a few of the questions raised here. The first is that I fully agree with members that it is only right and correct that we should pay tribute in the House to-day to the C.S.I.R. and all other bodies who have contributed so much to medical research in South Africa in years gone by. This is not the end of what is being done. This is merely continuing the good work, perhaps on a bigger and on a more organized scale than before. The hon. member for Durban (Central) raised the question of the members of this board. In general, I may say that the points he raised are fully covered in the clause as it stands. The position has been up to now that the Chairman of the Committee for Medical Research of the C.S.I.R. has been a medical man, as the hon. •member knows. My intention is that the President of this council should at least be a gentleman who has wide knowledge of medical research. After all, the function of this council would first and foremost be to decide which project must be tackled, to direct these projects, to co-ordinate and especially—I want to underline this—especially to be a watchdog as to overlapping of research. I cannot see how anybody else but a man with a wide knowledge of medical research could do this job properly. The point was also raised that a laboratory for defence should perhaps be incorporated. May I just point out that no special provision is made for such a laboratory, but it is certainly not excluded and this also applies to the activities of this council outside the borders of South Africa. There is specific provision that this council can operate in different ways, abroad.

I must reply to one point that has been raised which is perhaps not quite within the scope of this Bill and that is the question of Hong Kong flu. May I immediately say that there will be no grave shortage of vaccine, and that the vaccines that will be available will not only be available to key personnel. But it is my intention to give the House a fuller statement on this particular issue within a few days. I thought that I had to mention this at this moment because it might just have the effect that there will be grave concern amongst the public outside.

*Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal with another point, which I think was raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith, namely that this legislation and this council will in no respect reduce the amount of work that is being done at the universities and the medical schools. As a matter of fact, expansions at Scientia should be limited to the absolute minimum. A movement towards the universities, and not away from them, should be encouraged. This should be the basis on which this council should function and on which the funds should be spent. The initial appropriation will amount to more or less R1 million.

*There is one more point I want to deal with and that is the point the hon. member for Brentwood has raised in regard to publicity. May I assure the hon. member by saying that we have a very good example in the ease of the. C.S.I.R. as to the good which can come from publicity, but controlled publicity and selected publicity. I think this council will also see to it that the public in general and those who support us so generously will share in the achievements of this council and those who do the medical research for them. With the permission of the hon. members, I should like to deal with more of the points raised at a later stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.